NationStates Jolt Archive

Messianic Jews in Israel say they want an inquiry into the burning of hundreds of copies of the New Testament by Orthodox Jews in Or Yehuda last week.

The books were given to the town's Ethiopian Jews by the Messianic Jews, who believe in Jesus as a saviour. Or Yehuda's deputy mayor says he received complaints about the books, and arranged for them to be burnt.
He has now apologised after his actions have been compared to those of Nazis who burnt Jewish holy scriptures.

What the hell was this guy thinking!? :confused:


Many of the details of exactly what happened in Or Yehuda are now disputed.
But the deputy mayor says Messianic Jewish missionaries had targeted an area of the town where many Ethiopian Jews live, distributing packages containing New Testaments and pamphlets.
He says he received complaints and then drove around the area with a loudspeaker urging people to hand over the material to Orthodox religious students who went door-to-door collecting it.
The books were then dumped in a pile and burned.

Messianic Jews complain of institutionalised discrimination and are demanding all those involved be put on trial.
Meanwhile, Orthodox Jews are applauding the destruction of texts they say urge Jews to convert.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7413134.stm

We've had a shot up Koran is a warzone, and now hundreds of Bibles being piled high and torched. This is surely taking it to an uncomfortable level in a democracy, having people complain and pressurise their political leaders into making this complete and utterly idiotic move.
Did someone not pause somewhere along the line and say "Hey, you think this isn't the greatest way to deal with this?"

Thoughts, comments?

Goddamn that is a lot of wasted trees.

There's something about the burning of books that really bothers me, in a deep-down, gut reaction sort of way. I'm honestly not sure what it is. I just know that the burning of ANY books, even books that I personally dislike, feels really wrong.

I don't give two shits about the "religious" aspect, here, since the superstition surrounding the Bible doesn't give it any special weight with me. What bothers me is the use of book-burning to make a point. What point can it make, besides "We are so pissed at an idea that we want to set it on fire"?

There's something about the burning of books that really bothers me, in a deep-down, gut reaction sort of way. I'm honestly not sure what it is. I just know that the burning of ANY books, even books that I personally dislike, feels really wrong.

I don't give two shits about the "religious" aspect, here, since the superstition surrounding the Bible doesn't give it any special weight with me. What bothers me is the use of book-burning to make a point. What point can it make, besides "We are so pissed at an idea that we want to set it on fire"?

Yeah, I really don't like the burning of books either. What would happen if everybody burned all the books they didn't like? I seem to remember a certain author writing a dystopian novel about this once...

What the hell was this guy thinking!? :confused:

it sounded like a good idea at the time.

If they were burning unique books I could see outrage, but bibles? Jesus there are about 50 billion copies of that badly written tripe floating around. He ought of had them recycled.

Goddamn that is a lot of wasted trees.

The trees were already wasted...

What the hell was this guy thinking!? :confused:




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7413134.stm

We've had a shot up Koran is a warzone, and now hundreds of Bibles being piled high and torched. This is surely taking it to an uncomfortable level in a democracy, having people complain and pressurise their political leaders into making this complete and utterly idiotic move.
Did someone not pause somewhere along the line and say "Hey, you think this isn't the greatest way to deal with this?"

Thoughts, comments?

First thought - they didn't burn any Bibles. Your title is misleading.

Second thought - if you target someone for conversion, and they refuse your conversion, it's a bit pathetic to demand legal action.

Just when everyone was happy Mel Gibson was shutting the fuck up, this happens...

Goddamn that is a lot of wasted trees.

Who says the books weren't made from recycled materials?

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. Jews don't like missionaries. And we REALLY don't like Messianic Jews. This was their way of saying "F*** off."

Who says the books weren't made from recycled materials?

How many bibles are made from recycled paper?

How many bibles are made from recycled paper?

I don't know, but if they were all made from trees, we'd be very treeless now. *nods*

Why can't we all just get along? :)

I don't know, but if they were all made from trees, we'd be very treeless now. *nods*

Don't worry about the trees. This is Israel. They actually GAIN trees every year.

Don't worry about the trees. This is Israel. They actually GAIN trees every year.

;) JNF... gotcha.

When I read news like this I always ask myself....


Why the hell does the Pope doesnt calls for CRUSADES any more?

We should liberate the Holy Land from the Jews and Muslims!!!!!

:p

As a Liberal Jew, I hope that both sides realize that it was just a mistake and nothing harmful was meant by it. Its these kinds of stories of seemingly 'heretic' Jews that stirs up anti-semitic feelings in Christians, so hopefully this issue will be resolved quickly and rationally.

Why the hell does the Pope doesnt calls for CRUSADES any more?

We should liberate the Holy Land from the Jews and Muslims!!!!!

:p

Because didnt the current pope used to be a Hitler Youth back in the days....

a german pope calling for a crusade would end in a victory against the jews but a severe loss in public opinion for the vatican

much as the catholics are already lacking in said public opinion with the abundance of gays they allow into the priesthood who are discovered molesting choir boys, for the pope to put his old uniform back on and declare a crusade into jewish territory is asking for trouble

Oh please...just a short one!

When I read news like this I always ask myself....


Why the hell does the Pope doesnt calls for CRUSADES any more?

We should liberate the Holy Land from the Jews and Muslims!!!!!

:p

Well, it could be that every crusade except the first one failed?

Or maybe because nobody wants to see the result of Hamas allying with the IDF?

Well, it could be that every crusade except the first one failed?

Or maybe because nobody wants to see the result of Hamas allying with the IDF?


Suicide Merkavas....F16's with beards.....O TEH HORRORE

Just when everyone was happy Mel Gibson was shutting the fuck up, this happens...

:cool: LOL! A funny... and sobering, thought!

Second thought - if you target someone for conversion, and they refuse your conversion, it's a bit pathetic to demand legal action.

While I absolutely agree in regard to the people who were acting as private individuals, the involvement of an elected government official is somewhat disturbing. If he made it clear that he wasn't acting in his official role then I can't see any grounds for lawsuits, but there may be cause for complaint if he was using his position to enable the destruction.

On a separate note, I second Bottle's point: book-burning makes me feel profoundly uncomfortable (as does any situation where people choose to destroy ideas rather than dispute them), but I absolutely defend the right of people to take part in it.

As a Liberal Jew, I hope that both sides realize that it was just a mistake and nothing harmful was meant by it. Its these kinds of stories of seemingly 'heretic' Jews that stirs up anti-semitic feelings in Christians, so hopefully this issue will be resolved quickly and rationally.

Being reasonable about it, though... Jews don't want to be 'witnessed to' by "messianic Jews". If that wish had been respected, this 'story' wouldn't exist.

a german pope calling for a crusade would end in a victory against the jews but a severe loss in public opinion for the vatican

Say what? How many Catholic countries do you think would invade Israel if the Pope told them to? I'm guessing none: they're all either too apathetic or they're not militarily powerful enough to take on the IDF (even ignoring the 'Sampson Option').

While I absolutely agree in regard to the people who were acting as private individuals, the involvement of an elected government official is somewhat disturbing. If he made it clear that he wasn't acting in his official role then I can't see any grounds for lawsuits, but there may be cause for complaint if he was using his position to enable the destruction.

On a separate note, I second Bottle's point: book-burning makes me feel profoundly uncomfortable (as does any situation where people choose to destroy ideas rather than dispute them), but I absolutely defend the right of people to take part in it.

I hear it - burning books is a disturbing way of dealing with ideas. The problem is - that kind of approach isn't even that unusual. What has been done wrong, in this case, is not immediately attacking the "Messianic Jews" and pointing out that lots of religious communities (even in the US) attack the message.... through banning materials, censoring materials.. whatever. They shouldn't have allowed the Hitler comparison to stick uncontested.

The only issue I have is the person doing it was a deputy mayor and was more or less acting in an official function while he burned the books. Other wise assuming they were his books to burn who cares.

Why can't we all just get along? :)

Because the Jews clearly don't want that.

Because the Jews clearly don't want that.

Your right... Blood Libel Blood Libel
Crusade Crusade!!
Protocols of the elders of Zion.

Lets invade someone.

What the hell was this guy thinking!? :confused:




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7413134.stm

We've had a shot up Koran is a warzone, and now hundreds of Bibles being piled high and torched. This is surely taking it to an uncomfortable level in a democracy, having people complain and pressurise their political leaders into making this complete and utterly idiotic move.
Did someone not pause somewhere along the line and say "Hey, you think this isn't the greatest way to deal with this?"

Thoughts, comments?

what a waste, bible paper in thin and ideal for wrapping joints.

I'm not a big fan of the missionary way of thinking in which other people must be convinced of their error of their religious beliefs, but a mass, government-sanctioned book burning is very much not the way to deal with it. If someone hands you a religious text you don't want to read, you, personally, can certainly toss it out - but holding some sort of ceremonial community rejection-of-dissenting-ideas-by-FIRE ceremony is freaking creepy.

Because the Jews clearly don't want that.

Yes, them and their maliciously not accepting other people pressing alien beliefs on them. Bastards.

Yes, them and their maliciously not accepting other people pressing alien beliefs on them. Bastards.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

There's something about the burning of books that really bothers me, in a deep-down, gut reaction sort of way. I'm honestly not sure what it is. I just know that the burning of ANY books, even books that I personally dislike, feels really wrong.

I don't give two shits about the "religious" aspect, here, since the superstition surrounding the Bible doesn't give it any special weight with me. What bothers me is the use of book-burning to make a point. What point can it make, besides "We are so pissed at an idea that we want to set it on fire"?

Yeah, I feel like this as well, such a waste of potentially interesting and useful knowledge. Whenever I read of a fire at a library or something (especially Bagdad by the Mongols in whichever century) I almost feel sick.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

They do that all the time, don't they. Bloody Jew missionaries, and them Jew-witnesses, and the tele-evangelist Jews.

No, wait... they don't, do they.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

the hell? Pray tell when was the last time a group of jews showed up on your doorstep and wanted to talk to you about judaism?

Unlike christianity, which in my opinion includes these so called "jews", judaism doesn't seek converts, doesn't go door to door, don't preach in public, and in general judaism has a very dim view of conversion as a whole.

I'm willing to bet you have never once in your entire life been approached by a jew seeking your conversion. Not once.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

You just like to string buzzwords into sentences, don't you?

the hell? Pray tell when was the last time a group of jews showed up on your doorstep and wanted to talk to you about judaism?

Unlike christianity, which in my opinion includes these so called "jews", judaism doesn't seek converts, doesn't go door to door, don't preach in public, and in general judaism has a very dim view of conversion as a whole.

I'm willing to bet you have never once in your entire life been approached by a jew seeking your conversion. Not once.

To be fair, while I've never heard of any Jews attempting to convert non-Jews, I have heard of some Jews "pressing their beliefs" on others. The news stories some months back about Israeli Orthodox Jews attacking and berating women dressed in non-Orthodox-Jew-approved clothing on buses is one example of that.

(Did I just sort of kind of defend Kirschensittenbach? Please shoot me now.)

How many bibles are made from recycled paper?

Most of them, probably. They make newsprint look like high quality stuff.

(Did I just sort of kind of defend Kirschensittenbach? Please shoot me now.)

Well not really. One case of some jews being assholes towards someone else for not being a jew doesn't really come close to 'jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others'. In fact, that case could be an exception that proves the rule.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

Judaism is one of the few religions in the world that discourages converts.
They specifically do not press their beliefs on others.

Judaism is one of the few religions in the world that discourages converts.
They specifically do not press their beliefs on others.

I have vague memories of it actually being impossible to convert to Hinduism. If this isn't just something my brain dreamt up then I'm sure they don't want any converts either.

To be fair, while I've never heard of any Jews attempting to convert non-Jews, I have heard of some Jews "pressing their beliefs" on others. The news stories some months back about Israeli Orthodox Jews attacking and berating women dressed in non-Orthodox-Jew-approved clothing on buses is one example of that.

To be honest, some of the stories my cousins have told me about Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem makes me completely unsurprised by this. From what I've been told, though, (and this is entirely anecdotal so take with a grain of salt....but only a grain of Lawry Salt) it is mostly restricted there to Orthodox Jews harassing less religious Jews about not keeping Shabbat and such nonsense. How do they differentiate secular Jews from non-Jews? I can't tell you, but I can let you know there's a reason we have such large noses...we can smell each other's jew-ness.

To be fair, while I've never heard of any Jews attempting to convert non-Jews, I have heard of some Jews "pressing their beliefs" on others. The news stories some months back about Israeli Orthodox Jews attacking and berating women dressed in non-Orthodox-Jew-approved clothing on buses is one example of that.

(Did I just sort of kind of defend Kirschensittenbach? Please shoot me now.)

Now, I never said that some Jews weren't assholes, but that's not an example of pushing their beliefs on others.
Those Jews are under the belief that it's a sin for them to see women in revealing clothing. It doesn't have anything to do with what the woman believes.

Well not really. One case of some jews being assholes towards someone else for not being a jew doesn't really come close to 'jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others'. In fact, that case could be an exception that proves the rule.

Whew, I feel better now. :p

Basically, I think a more accurate statement would be, "A reasonably large proportion of the particularly fundamentalist or literal-minded followers of any religion tend to be okay with pressing their beliefs on others."

As for an accurate statement that actually pertains to this situation, how about: "Going around trying to convert people to your religion is pretty lame. Responding to others' lame conversion attempts by holding a mass book-burning is also pretty lame. Next time, why not just use the free books to prop up wobbly tables or something?"

the sight of Jews burning bibles, what was that idiot deputy mayor thinking.

Now, I never said that some Jews weren't assholes, but that's not an example of pushing their beliefs on others.
Those Jews are under the belief that it's a sin for them to see women in revealing clothing. It doesn't have anything to do with what the woman believes.

I don't want to accidentally hijack this thread, but, honestly, I have to call BS on that one. Demanding that others conform to their ideas of how one should dress is pretty manifestly an attempt to press their beliefs on others.

What the hell was this guy thinking!? :confused:




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7413134.stm

We've had a shot up Koran is a warzone, and now hundreds of Bibles being piled high and torched. This is surely taking it to an uncomfortable level in a democracy, having people complain and pressurise their political leaders into making this complete and utterly idiotic move.
Did someone not pause somewhere along the line and say "Hey, you think this isn't the greatest way to deal with this?"

Thoughts, comments?

If another Christian did it, I'd probably be horrified.
They were given to Orthodox Jews who had no interest in them; to them, it's just a book.

I would have hoped they would do something more respectful, like perhaps donating them to a library, but hey... it's not like destroying some copies of the Bible is destroying all of them, or the meaning inside them.

It's just paper and ink. No big deal.

Yeah, I really don't like the burning of books either. What would happen if everybody burned all the books they didn't like? I seem to remember a certain author writing a dystopian novel about this once...

Mmmhmmmm.

Bradbury is one cool dude.

If another Christian did it, I'd probably be horrified.
They were given to Orthodox Jews who had no interest in them; to them, it's just a book.

I would have hoped they would do something more respectful, like perhaps donating them to a library, but hey... it's not like destroying some copies of the Bible is destroying all of them, or the meaning inside them.

It's just paper and ink. No big deal.

Oh I never intended this to be a "Jew/Christian/Bible/Torah" discussion. My angle was A) a Jewish politician burning books he didn't agree with, with connotations attached, and B) why do people feel the need to pile books on a pyre and destory them merely because they don't agree with them.
:)

There's something about the burning of books that really bothers me, in a deep-down, gut reaction sort of way. I'm honestly not sure what it is. I just know that the burning of ANY books, even books that I personally dislike, feels really wrong.

I don't give two shits about the "religious" aspect, here, since the superstition surrounding the Bible doesn't give it any special weight with me. What bothers me is the use of book-burning to make a point. What point can it make, besides "We are so pissed at an idea that we want to set it on fire"?

ALL religious books should be burned.

First thought - they didn't burn any Bibles. Your title is misleading.

The New Testament is half the Bible. Let's not get too nitpicky here.

When I read news like this I always ask myself....


Why the hell does the Pope doesnt calls for CRUSADES any more?

We should liberate the Holy Land from the Jews and Muslims!!!!!

:p

:rolleyes: Another county heard from.

Yeah, they dont want outsiders pressing their beliefs on jews but jews are fully okay with pressing their beliefs on others

Right. Because they ENCOURAGE conversion to Judaism.

Oh wait.....

The New Testament is half the Bible. Let's not get too nitpicky here.

Nitpicky?

Judaism doesn't have a Greek scripture. From the point of view of Judaism, there is no 'bible'... there's the real holy scriptures, and whatever Christians have that steals from it and is basically a catalogue of heresies and blasphemies aimed at perverting the true faith.

The New Testament is half of 'the bible' TO CHRISTIANS. It's a direct attack on all you hold sacred to Jews... and certainly NOT part of your holy scripture.

What would the average Christian do, do you think, if handed a copy of the 'next book'... the one that perverts all the teachings of Jesus, ignores the most core rules of Christianity, and attempts to subvert the worship of Christians from their god to an icon?

What would the average Christian do, do you think, if handed a copy of the 'next book'... the one that perverts all the teachings of Jesus, ignores the most core rules of Christianity, and attempts to subvert the worship of Christians from their god to an icon?

Wonder who spent the time to write it.

Wonder who spent the time to write it.

God, obviously.

Oh I never intended this to be a "Jew/Christian/Bible/Torah" discussion. My angle was A) a Jewish politician burning books he didn't agree with, with connotations attached, and B) why do people feel the need to pile books on a pyre and destory them merely because they don't agree with them.
:)

And my point is, pretty much, meh. It doesn't incite me to rage. It's a book. It's not like it's murder. I don't like book burning either, but it's not as if God is going to be mortally wounded, nor will you find Christians rising up to kill every Orthodox Jew they can lay hands on.

I don't think, however, that they themselves would be so laissez-faire regarding the Talmud or the Torah being burned.

The internet troll in me emphatically applauds both the Messianic Jewish provocators and the Orthodox Jewish book burners. They've both demonstrated that trolling is not just an online art form, but a real-live one too.

Nitpicky?

Judaism doesn't have a Greek scripture. From the point of view of Judaism, there is no 'bible'... there's the real holy scriptures, and whatever Christians have that steals from it and is basically a catalogue of heresies and blasphemies aimed at perverting the true faith.

The New Testament is half of 'the bible' TO CHRISTIANS. It's a direct attack on all you hold sacred to Jews... and certainly NOT part of your holy scripture.

What would the average Christian do, do you think, if handed a copy of the 'next book'... the one that perverts all the teachings of Jesus, ignores the most core rules of Christianity, and attempts to subvert the worship of Christians from their god to an icon?

Ok, well, as far as I know, Jews do not call their Holy Books the Bible. That name as far as I know applies only to the Christian faith. Are not the holy texts of the Jews the Torah and the Talmud?

Seriously, the New Testament is a biblical text. I don't know what you're getting your shorts in a knot about.

And having gotten "the next book" -- that is, the Koran and the Book of Mormon, I leafed through them and pretty much said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

There really is no reason to burn a book unless someone is being an asshole.

-snip-

Then go complain to the BBC. The title isn't really mine, it's theirs.

I guess "Israel hit by Bible burning row" is editorially easier than "Israel hit by Orthodox Jews burning copies of the New Testament".

But feel free to zoom in on the actual point of debate - semantics.

Judaism doesn't have a Greek scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

What would the average Christian do, do you think, if handed a copy of the 'next book'... the one that perverts all the teachings of Jesus, ignores the most core rules of Christianity, and attempts to subvert the worship of Christians from their god to an icon?

It has already been done numerous times.

the sight of Jews burning bibles, what was that idiot deputy mayor thinking.

He wasn't.

God, obviously.

I should have known. He kept telling me he was working on a new novel, but I didn't believe him. He's such a procrastinator you know.

Took him about 4.5 billion years to write the first one...

Ok, well, as far as I know, Jews do not call their Holy Books the Bible.


Actually, it is not unheard of to refer to Tanakh as a bible.


That name as far as I know applies only to the Christian faith.


Primarily, perhaps. Not exclusively. However - the Christian Bible consists of both Hebrew AND Greek scriptures... and that is not what was burned.


Are not the holy texts of the Jews the Torah and the Talmud?


No. The books are Tanakh (including Torah), Talmud... maybe midrash texts, etc.

(NOte, of course... the Greek scriptures are not on that list.)


Seriously, the New Testament is a biblical text. I don't know what you're getting your shorts in a knot about.

The New Testament IS a 'biblical text'... to christians. It is heresy to Jews. A 'real' (in christian terms) Bible wouldn't have been burned, because it contains Tanakh texts). I'm hardly getting my shorts in a knot by pointing out that no Bibles were burned.

From Apocalypse Now, I give you:

"I love the smell of burnt books in the sunrise. It smells of... Stupidity."

Side note, what will the "I wanna get back to the Middle Ages" morons do when books are effectively replaced by online texts? Burn servers? :p

Actually, it is not unheard of to refer to Tanakh as a bible.



Primarily, perhaps. Not exclusively. However - the Christian Bible consists of both Hebrew AND Greek scriptures... and that is not what was burned.



No. The books are Tanakh (including Torah), Talmud... maybe midrash texts, etc.

(NOte, of course... the Greek scriptures are not on that list.)



The New Testament IS a 'biblical text'... to christians. It is heresy to Jews. A 'real' (in christian terms) Bible wouldn't have been burned, because it contains Tanakh texts). I'm hardly getting my shorts in a knot by pointing out that no Bibles were burned.

Equivocation doesn't suit you.

First thought - they didn't burn any Bibles. Your title is misleading.
The title wasn't misleading at all. I would estimate that the vast, vast majority of people who read that title immediately had a mental image of skullcap-wearing pork-abstainers burning Jesus-books. Thus the title admirably and succinctly fulfilled its purpose of clearly conveying a specific idea to a large number of people. What other use of language is there than to efficiently convey?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

That's a translation. The "official" version is the Masoretic Hebrew text (which, of course, is probably not the original from which the Septuagint was made.)

That's a translation. The "official" version is the Masoretic Hebrew text (which, of course, is probably not the original from which the Septuagint was made.)

Back in the day the Septuagint was honored and venerated by leading Jewish scholars in the same way the KJV was, and continues to be, honored and venerated by many English speakers. Who is to say translation cannot add to the clarity and beauty of the original message? Who is to say what is the "official" version and what isn't?

The New Testament is half the Bible. Let's not get too nitpicky here.

Not to a jew it's not.

Back in the day the Septuagint was honored and venerated by leading Jewish scholars in the same way the KJV was, and continues to be, honored and venerated by many English speakers.

Right, but nobody says that the Gospels were written in English.

Not to a jew it's not.

Even the most zealous Orthodox Jew agrees that the NT is half of the "Christian Bible". In certain instances when the word "Bible" is mentioned singly without qualifying adjectives, the "Christian" part is implied by context. An Orthodox Jew, when he has matured past the nitpicking phase of adolescence, will find the colloquial useage acceptable. (I have just confirmed this by asking the opinion of my friend who is sitting at the computer next to me, and he is an Orthodox Jew, but not a Zealot)

Right, but nobody says that the Gospels were written in English.

Actually there are learned English theologians who argue that the KJV is divinely inspired (and spiritually distinct from the sources from which it was translated). Likewise there were also learned Jewish theologians who argued that the very process of translation of the Septuagint was divinely inspired.

Ok, well, as far as I know, Jews do not call their Holy Books the Bible.

Actually many do. In fact it's the term 'Hebrew Bible", although many jews find the term "hebrew" redundant and just call it "the bible"

That name as far as I know applies only to the Christian faith. Are not the holy texts of the Jews the Torah and the Talmud?

Um, not exactly. In Jewish dogma, the Talmud is not divine writ. The Talmud is rabbinacal commentary to the old testament/bible. It's not part of the Hebrew Bible, it is the commentary and discussions of learned rabinical scholars. It's...an addendum, an interpretation of the Bible, as well as commentary on jewish laws, ethics, and morality.

As for the Torah, what the torah is, is the five sacred books of Moses. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It is the most important part of the "Hebrew Bible" but not the entirety.

The Hebrew Bible is three parts. Torah, Nevi'im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings).

The torah is, as I said, the five books of Moses. In order as I said it. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

The Nevi'im is the 8 books (which are numbered books 6 through 13 in the jewish bible, 1-5 being the Torah), which are, in order, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and book 13 which is the "minor" prophets (which is sometimes broken up into 12 sub books, for the 12 minor prophets)

Then the Ketuvim is 11 books, made up of other writings, and these books are numbered 14 through 24 (this is where you find Psalms, the story of Job, the story of Ruth and Esther, the Song of Songs, and other parts).

Collectively these 24 books is refered to as the Tanakh, as in T.N.K. Torah, Nevi,im and Ketuvim. Now the first five books are the most important of the 24, but it is not the entirety of the Tanakh, which is to some called the "Hebrew Bible" and some jews, as I said, find the "Hebrew" both redundant and somewhat wrong, since it suggests there are other bibles out there, and call it, simply, "the Bible.

The Talmud, while important to Judaism, is not part of the Tanakh.

Even the most zealous Orthodox Jew agrees that the NT is half of the "Christian Bible". In certain instances when the word "Bible" is mentioned singly without qualifying adjectives, the "Christian" part is implied by context. An Orthodox Jew, when he has matured past the nitpicking phase of adolescence, will find the colloquial useage acceptable. (I have just confirmed this by asking the opinion of my friend who is sitting at the computer next to me, and he is an Orthodox Jew, but not a Zealot)

your one jewish friend notwithstanding, other orthodox jews find it less "nitpicky" and find the idea that the term "bible" should include thoe false idolitry of the new testament to be insulting.

Your friend might have one view. To others, there is one bible, and only one bible, and it's the Tanakh. And when your faith (as all faiths are, really) is predicated in the belief that your system is correct and others are not, resisting attempts to co-op your sacred texts is not in the slightest bit "nitpicking".

Although in fairness, quite many orthodox jews don't give a damn about colloquial usage of anything. To them, the gentiles can say whatever they want, they're not the chosen people.

your one jewish friend notwithstanding, other orthodox jews find it less "nitpicky" and find the idea that the term "bible" should include thoe false idolitry of the new testament to be insulting.

Your friend might have one view. To others, there is one bible, and only one bible, and it's the Tanakh. And when your faith (as all faiths are, really) is predicated in the belief that your system is correct and others are not, resisting attempts to co-op your sacred texts is not in the slightest bit "nitpicking".

It's ironic, because "Bible" is from a Greek, not Hebrew, word that originally referred to the Hellenistic Septuagint, and not the Hebrew Tanakh. I think the shakiness of the etymology renders the debate purely fantastical.

Although in fairness, quite many orthodox jews don't give a damn about colloquial usage of anything. To them, the gentiles can say whatever they want, they're not the chosen people.

Exactly, then the ambiguity is resolved, and the gentiles of this thread can continue to call the Christian Bible "the Bible" because it saves a word to type.

Exactly, then the ambiguity is resolved, and the gentiles of this thread can continue to call the Christian Bible "the Bible" because it saves a word to type.

Except, as was generally pointed out, they didn't burn any bibles. They burned the new testament. Which, even to a christian, is not the Bible. Part of the bible yes, but not the bible entirely. Orthodox jews wouldn't burn a (christian) bible simply because it contains the Tanakh, and they'd never burn the sacred texts, even if they burned some falsity (at best) or herasy (at worst)

It's ironic, because "Bible" is from a Greek, not Hebrew, word that originally referred to the Hellenistic Septuagint, and not the Hebrew Tanakh.

The Septuagint is the Tanakh; it's the Tanakh translated into Greek.

I don't want to accidentally hijack this thread, but, honestly, I have to call BS on that one. Demanding that others conform to their ideas of how one should dress is pretty manifestly an attempt to press their beliefs on others.

You're missing the dimensions of the dilemma. The issue is not how others dress, it's how others dress around them, because the modesty requirements are dual: people are not supposed to dress immodestly, and they are also not supposed to be around people who dress or behave immodestly.

Except, as was generally pointed out, they didn't burn any bibles. They burned the new testament. Which, even to a christian, is not the Bible. Part of the bible yes, but not the bible entirely. Orthodox jews wouldn't burn a (christian) bible simply because it contains the Tanakh, and they'd never burn the sacred texts, even if they burned some falsity (at best) or herasy (at worst)

I thought the millions of Orthodox Jews of the world don't care about the syntax of the word "Bible" in this humble NS thread? Be like the pious Jews and leave the gentiles alone to play with the flexibility of the English language (or any language for that matter). If I were to burn the Acts of the Apostles and no other section of the NT, through the power of synecdoche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche) you can call me a "Bible-burner". Likewise if I burned the NT and not the OT you can also call me a "Bible-burner." Such is the richness and flexibily of human language (as opposed to animal communication systems).

The Septuagint is the Tanakh; it's the Tanakh translated into Greek.

The Septuagint and Tanakh are substantially different. The Septuagint includes sections of books, and additional books entirely, that are not found in the Tanakh. In addition the Septuagint is not a most literal translation and its words contains implicit theological positions rejected by almost all modern Jews today. A 21st century Greek Jew would rely rather on a rabbinically approved Greek translation of the Tanakh than on the heterodox Septuagint.

The Septuagint and Tanakh are substantially different. The Septuagint includes sections of books, and additional books entirely, that are not found in the Tanakh.

But by and large its content corresponds to the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian version. It's the "Old Testament."

But by and large its content corresponds to the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian version. It's the "Old Testament."

Actually the Septuagint corresponds with the Christian (specifically Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) Old Testament. The Septuagint does not correspond to the Tanakh read by modern Jews.

Just as one example , the Book of Tobit (one of the most amusing and underrated books of the Bible) is in the Septuagint, is in the Catholic Bible, is in the Orthodox Christian Bible, but is not in the Tanakh. It is also not in the Protestant Bible.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know much about either the Tanakh or the Septuagint.

Actually the Septuagint corresponds with the Christian (specifically Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) Old Testament.

Yeah, so?

If you recall the context of the original point, the question is whether the word "Bible" is an appropriate word to describe the New Testament, standing alone. You noted that the word "Bible" was originally used to describe the Septuagint, and my point in response was that the Septuagint more closely matches the Jewish version (the Tanakh) than the Christian version (which includes the New Testament.)

This point is only strengthened by the fact that the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars, for use by Jews.

I did not mean to suggest that there was a one-to-one equivalence between the Jewish version of the Bible as presently used (and as used for most of the past two millenia) and the Septuagint version. Indeed, elsewhere in this thread I have explicitly pointed out that this is not the case.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know much about either the Tanakh or the Septuagint.

I make no claim to extensive knowledge of the Septuagint. The Tanakh is a different matter.

Thoughts, comments?

Man, I sure hope the whole town enjoyed the marshmellow roast. :eek: Good thing they didn't burn the Koran, or there would have been flag burnings and riots in the Muslim world. :mad:

I should add that the decisions about Jewish canonization weren't finalized until long after the Septuagint was translated. It's holding them to an impossible standard of "Jewishness", for lack of a better term, to pretend that they should hold by canonical rulings decided centuries later.

It remains true that in their historical context, the religious role they played, they were the translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek. Certainly they are in no respect "Christian"--Jesus was born long afterward.

You're missing the dimensions of the dilemma. The issue is not how others dress, it's how others dress around them, because the modesty requirements are dual: people are not supposed to dress immodestly, and they are also not supposed to be around people who dress or behave immodestly.

So, of course, attacking those who dress immodestly is a more proper course of action than, perhaps, walking away/leaving the bus? Just for the sake of curiosity?

So, of course, attacking those who dress immodestly is a more proper course of action than, perhaps, walking away/leaving the bus?

I didn't say it was, did I?

I just think we should be fair-minded... we should recognize what is, really, a basic cultural break, and one where in a very real sense neither side can give way. Are secular people inclined to change their lifestyles to adapt to the whims of the Orthodox? Of course not. Are the Orthodox going to alter their strongly-held beliefs in deference to ideals of secularism and individual freedom that have no place in their framework? Also of course not.

Is the position of either side on principle wrong or illegitimate? Hardly--the secular people just want to be left in peace, and dress in public places is not obviously exempt from social regulation.

The point is that it's a real problem, and one that has no easy solution. However much people are tempted to do so, simply saying "Screw the Orthodox" isn't likely to get anyone anywhere, and furthermore, threatens the basic fabric of a political community that one way or another is going to have to live together. (Especially if they ever make peace with the Palestinians and their remaining Arab enemies, and lose the external threat that's kept things somewhat workable so far.)

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. Jews don't like missionaries. And we REALLY don't like Messianic Jews.

Hell, I'm not even Jewish and I know there's a word for those: Christians.

The point is that it's a real problem, and one that has no easy solution. However much people are tempted to do so, simply saying "Screw the Orthodox" isn't likely to get anyone anywhere, and furthermore, threatens the basic fabric of a political community that one way or another is going to have to live together.

I think "Screw the Orthodox" is an entirely fair response when the Orthodox position is "I get to harass and assault people who don't do what I say." (Note, of course, that this is obviously not the position of Orthodox Jews as a whole, nor should anyone "screw" the majority of Orthodox Jews who are quite capable of realizing that the fact that a woman wore pants in public is not a license to attack her.)

Nitpicky?

Judaism doesn't have a Greek scripture. From the point of view of Judaism, there is no 'bible'... there's the real holy scriptures, and whatever Christians have that steals from it and is basically a catalogue of heresies and blasphemies aimed at perverting the true faith.

The New Testament is half of 'the bible' TO CHRISTIANS. It's a direct attack on all you hold sacred to Jews... and certainly NOT part of your holy scripture.

What would the average Christian do, do you think, if handed a copy of the 'next book'... the one that perverts all the teachings of Jesus, ignores the most core rules of Christianity, and attempts to subvert the worship of Christians from their god to an icon?

I need to get started on writing that . . .

the hell? Pray tell when was the last time a group of jews showed up on your doorstep and wanted to talk to you about judaism?

Unlike christianity, which in my opinion includes these so called "jews", judaism doesn't seek converts, doesn't go door to door, don't preach in public, and in general judaism has a very dim view of conversion as a whole.

I'm willing to bet you have never once in your entire life been approached by a jew seeking your conversion. Not once.

Well why would they? Orthodox Judaism states that Jews are the superior human beings in this world and the only way you can be a Jew is if your mother was a Jew. So why would they go around trying to convert inferior people to a religion when they cannot become a Jew

The internet troll in me emphatically applauds both the Messianic Jewish provocators and the Orthodox Jewish book burners. They've both demonstrated that trolling is not just an online art form, but a real-live one too.

Isn't it more of a case of real life flaming ;)

Well why would they? Orthodox Judaism states that Jews are the superior human beings in this world and the only way you can be a Jew is if your mother was a Jew. So why would they go around trying to convert inferior people to a religion when they cannot become a Jew

that's entirely untrue. Orthodox judaism does recognize a conversion process. It's discouraged and designed to turn away those who are not serious, but you can convert to orthodox judaism.

that's entirely untrue. Orthodox judaism does recognize a conversion process. It's discouraged and designed to turn away those who are not serious, but you can convert to orthodox judaism.

Yes Neo you are entirely right and after a consultation with a Jewish friend. Nowadays you may join the Jewish faith if you convert in strict accordance with Jewish beliefs and traditions regardless of if your mother was a Jew. This was not always the case however, and Jews still do believe that they are superior beings, however if you are a Jew and marry a non-Jew then that is strictly forbidden and you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community

Yes Neo you are entirely right and after a consultation with a Jewish friend. Nowadays you may join the Jewish faith if you convert in strict accordance with Jewish beliefs and traditions regardless of if your mother was a Jew. This was not always the case however, and Jews still do believe that they are superior beings, however if you are a Jew and marry a non-Jew then that is strictly forbidden and you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community

"superior" is a tough word. Orthodox believe they are chosen. Does that make them "superior"? To some, perhaps. To other in the orthodoxy however, it merely means god chose them. Why? Dunno, that's for god to know. Value judgements like "superior" are not for mortals to understand.

Their perspective is "god chose us. Does that make us superior? Inferior? Better? Don't know. It's not our place to question god"

Yes Neo you are entirely right and after a consultation with a Jewish friend. Nowadays you may join the Jewish faith if you convert in strict accordance with Jewish beliefs and traditions regardless of if your mother was a Jew. This was not always the case however, and Jews still do believe that they are superior beings, however if you are a Jew and marry a non-Jew then that is strictly forbidden and you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community

None of this is correct...at all.

"superior" is a tough word. Orthodox believe they are chosen. Does that make them "superior"? To some, perhaps. To other in the orthodoxy however, it merely means god chose them. Why? Dunno, that's for god to know. Value judgements like "superior" are not for mortals to understand.

Their perspective is "god chose us. Does that make us superior? Inferior? Better? Don't know. It's not our place to question god"

Well my friend does say it in jest nowadays, but does say that the Jews of ancient times believed it to be true, I use it as hyperbole.

None of this is correct...at all.

Well perhaps you would like to correct me on all of it since I got all of it wrong.

Sometimes you can't win on these forums you say one thing you are told you are wrong you say the complete opposite and you are told you are still wrong

Yeah, so?

If you recall the context of the original point, the question is whether the word "Bible" is an appropriate word to describe the New Testament, standing alone. You noted that the word "Bible" was originally used to describe the Septuagint, and my point in response was that the Septuagint more closely matches the Jewish version (the Tanakh) than the Christian version (which includes the New Testament.)
In the context of the original point, my intent was to point out that the debate over who has the genuine God-given claim to the word "Bible" and who possesses a "True Bible" and who possesses "False Bibles" is purely fantastical.

This point is only strengthened by the fact that the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars, for use by Jews.

I did not mean to suggest that there was a one-to-one equivalence between the Jewish version of the Bible as presently used (and as used for most of the past two millenia) and the Septuagint version. Indeed, elsewhere in this thread I have explicitly pointed out that this is not the case.

I should add that the decisions about Jewish canonization weren't finalized until long after the Septuagint was translated. It's holding them to an impossible standard of "Jewishness", for lack of a better term, to pretend that they should hold by canonical rulings decided centuries later.


You raise good points about the history of the word "Bible".


It remains true that in their historical context, the religious role they played, they were the translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek. Certainly they are in no respect "Christian"--Jesus was born long afterward.

You say that the "historical context" and "religious role" of the Septuagint classifies it as Jewish exclusively. In reality the historical context and religious role of the Septuagint may classify it as Christian, more so than Jewish. The Septuagint has played an all-pervasive role in the Christian religion. Meanwhile, whether the Septuagint has or has not played a role in the historical development of Judaism, an orthodox rabbi would like to have you think it has not. The Septuagint, the Hellenized brand of Judaism associated with it, and the Hellenized Jewish figures (Josephus, anyone?) are all downplayed in the post-Temple Jewish tradition. I'm not denying that the Septuagint is an important document from Jewish history, but as an orthodox rabbi would tell it (dunno about the Reform people), the entire Hellenstic era of Judaism was actually an unwelcome interruption in the continuity of Judaism since the time of the original covenant. One place where the traditional rabbinical establishment's backlash against the enthusiasm of 4th century Jews for Greek culture can be seen in a Hasidic term for Jewish heretics - "apikorsim" - or "Epicureans", recalling the large numbers of Jews all those millenia ago who abandoned Hebrew and learned Greek and followed the Greek philosopher Epicurus. In the context of this badly-reviewed Jewish experiment with Hellenism, it makes sense that the Greek Septuagint turned out to be - to put it bluntly for the Christians - like undesirable table scraps rejected by the Jewish traditionalists, so it was picked up by the Christians who made it a central text of their new religion. After all, the Hellenistic culture represented by the Septuagint was the very thing violently rebelled against by traditionalists like Judas Maccabeus.

I don't know if you accept the theory of evolution, but the Septuagint is something like the eyeball in the evolutionary history of earth's living organisms. The eyeball certainly did not first evolve in humans, and evolved in an earlier creature. Yet the eyeball is absolutely essential to the human species, and the human species would be incomplete without eyeballs. It can be concluded that yes, the eyeball is a human thing, even though humans did not originate the eyeball. Likewise the Septuagint, though not written by people calling themselves Christians, is also a Christian thing, so essential is it to the Christian religion. At certain times in history it might even be more essential to Christianity than to Judaism.

I'm not claiming ownership of the Septuagint for Christianity, while denying it from the Jews (I'm not even Christian myself). Rather, I wanted to observe that the whole rich panorama and spectrum and history of religions can absolutely not be done justice by fantastical nitpicking over who has the better claim to this or that "Bible", and who reads the "True Bible" and who reads a "False Bible".

Isn't it more of a case of real life flaming ;)
My theory is that killing people constitutes flaming, while being an exhibitionist contitutes trolling.

My theory is that killing people constitutes flaming, while being an exhibitionist contitutes trolling.

Only a joke mate, making reference to the fire, hence flaming

In the context of the original point, my intent was to point out that the debate over who has the genuine God-given claim to the word "Bible" and who possesses a "True Bible" and who possesses "False Bibles" is purely fantastical.

Well, I don't know about "fantastical", but certainly it is pedantic.

In reality the historical context and religious role of the Septuagint may classify it as Christian, more so than Jewish. The Septuagint has played an all-pervasive role in the Christian religion.

But the question is not one of "role", more "ownership" in a loose sense. Judaism itself, and its holy texts, played a massive role in Christianity.

Meanwhile, whether the Septuagint has or has not played a role in the historical development of Judaism, an orthodox rabbi would like to have you think it has not. The Septuagint, the Hellenized brand of Judaism associated with it, and the Hellenized Jewish figures (Josephus, anyone?) are all downplayed in the post-Temple Jewish tradition. I'm not denying that the Septuagint is an important document from Jewish history, but as an orthodox rabbi would tell it (dunno about the Reform people), the entire Hellenstic era of Judaism was actually an unwelcome interruption in the continuity of Judaism since the time of the original covenant. One place where the traditional rabbinical establishment's backlash against the enthusiasm of 4th century Jews for Greek culture can be seen in a Hasidic term for Jewish heretics - "apikorsim" - or "Epicureans", recalling the large numbers of Jews all those millenia ago who abandoned Hebrew and learned Greek and followed the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

You're not wrong here, but you're not right either. The traditional rabbinic establishment, then and now, was more ambivalent on the subject than you give them credit for. There's an abundance, for instance, of Greek terminology in the Talmud ("apikorsim" is certainly not an isolated case), and a definite Hellenistic influence on numerous Jewish traditions--the one that comes to mind most immediately is the Passover Seder.

I mean, are there elements of orthodoxy that would have liked to see Jews totally isolated from everyone else, without any cultural transfer or influence? Yes, there are, and there always have been. But both in the modern world and the ancient, it's a matter of dispute, even between traditional Jews. Figures like Maimonides kept on the project of reconciling Jewish religion with non-Jewish, especially Greek, philosophy (and were often sharply criticized for it.)

In the context of this badly-reviewed Jewish experiment with Hellenism, it makes sense that the Greek Septuagint turned out to be - to put it bluntly for the Christians - like undesirable table scraps rejected by the Jewish traditionalists, so it was picked up by the Christians who made it a central text of their new religion.

Yes, but my point is that we should understand this in the context of Christian absorption of certain Jewish texts... not as something separate, something Christianizing.

I don't know if you accept the theory of evolution,

Don't get me wrong, I'm as atheist and secular as they come.

Likewise the Septuagint, though not written by people calling themselves Christians, is also a Christian thing, so essential is it to the Christian religion.

The Septuagint is a Christian text in that it is used by Christians. But nobody disputes that biblical texts are used by Christians. The issue here is whether the term can be legitimately extended to the New Testament (which, of course, is not itself a term traditional Jews particularly like, since they would claim there has been no new testament.)

Rather, I wanted to observe that the whole rich panorama and spectrum and history of religions can absolutely not be done justice by fantastical nitpicking over who has the better claim to this or that "Bible", and who reads the "True Bible" and who reads a "False Bible".

I'm not going to disagree with that.

I think "Screw the Orthodox" is an entirely fair response when the Orthodox position is "I get to harass and assault people who don't do what I say."

And I'm not at all saying you're wrong--attacking people is not acceptable. I'm just trying to point out that this issue (in a broad sense) is not so clear-cut.

This was not always the case however,

On what basis do you say that? It's been an element of Rabbinic Judaism from the start, and there's Biblical support--see the story of Ruth.

and Jews still do believe that they are superior beings,

Okay, first, who are "Jews"? Reconstructionist Judaism quite explicitly rejects the concept of chosenness.

Second, the meaning of the term "chosen people" is just not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Are there elements of Jewish exceptionalism in Judaism? Yes--just as there are in every other religion.

however if you are a Jew and marry a non-Jew then that is strictly forbidden and you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community

What nonsense. Intermarriage is actually quite common, though it is forbidden. Only a small minority of Jews have the intensely antagonistic attitude towards it that you suggest.

This is surely taking it to an uncomfortable level in a democracy

Whenever I hear the sound of books burning, I also hear the Königrätzer Marsch. And I thank the luck I don't live in Poland, if you catch my mind.

The Septuagint is a Christian text in that it is used by Christians.

:confused: afaik, the Septuagint Bible was written BEFORE Christ in Alexandria. So, it cannot be a "christian" text. Also the Jews used that until the 2nd century AD (see wiki on that).
The Septuagint is merely the oldest translation of the Bible into a non-hebraic language.

Is wiki my friend?


The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria.[1] The Septuagint also includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible.


Yes yes wiki is my friend.

:confused: afaik, the Septuagint Bible was written BEFORE Christ in Alexandria. So, it cannot be a "christian" text. Also the Jews used that until the 2nd century AD (see wiki on that).
The Septuagint is merely the oldest translation of the Bible into a non-hebraic language.

Read the full context. We don't disagree at all.

Doesn't the Bible contain the word "YHWH"?

Doesn't the Bible contain the word "YHWH"?

...and so?

Doesn't the Bible contain the word "YHWH"?

New Testament.

Little off the topic but I was curious:

Messianic Jews, who believe in Jesus as a saviour

Aren't they supposed to be, erm I don't know.. Christians?:D

...and so?

Orthodox Jews shouldn't be destroying the word.

New Testament.

Depends the translation, some Biblical scholars insist on the Hebrew name of God, believing Matthew was original written in Hebrew and Aramaic or Greek.

the hell? Pray tell when was the last time a group of jews showed up on your doorstep and wanted to talk to you about judaism?

Unlike christianity, which in my opinion includes these so called "jews", judaism doesn't seek converts, doesn't go door to door, don't preach in public, and in general judaism has a very dim view of conversion as a whole.

I'm willing to bet you have never once in your entire life been approached by a jew seeking your conversion. Not once.


They dont go around door-to-door preaching, but they do put themselves all over the media so you cant avoid seeing them everywhere you look

turn on the TV, oh look, its Fran Drescher and Lisa kudrow
read a magazine, hey its michelle trachtenberg and joan rivers
movies: hey, mel brooks, jeff goldblum, bette midler, dustin hoffman and woody allen

the more i see of their kind the more i like my muslim friends,...well,...so you could say that the jews have helped strengthen some of my friendships:p

but in reality,...you dont see people of other religions waving it everywhere
I dont see those of other religions having to make themselves known, they believe in what they do, and leave it at that

its bad enough with americans acting as if they want to wave the US flag in everyones face and hope that makes them better than anyone else, without the jews having to scream out to the world what they are and how they think they are better

They dont go around door-to-door preaching, but they do put themselves all over the media so you cant avoid seeing them everywhere you look

turn on the TV, oh look, its Fran Drescher and Lisa kudrow
read a magazine, hey its michelle trachtenberg and joan rivers
movies: hey, mel brooks, jeff goldblum, bette midler, dustin hoffman and woody allen

the more i see of their kind the more i like my muslim friends,...well,...so you could say that the jews have helped strengthen some of my friendships with others:p

but in reality,...you dont see people of other religions waving it everywhere
I dont see those of other religions having to make themselves known, they believe in what they do, and leave it at that

its bad enough with americans acting as if they want to wave the US flag in everyones face and hope that makes them better than anyone else, without the jews having to scream out to the world what they are and how they think they are better

Jetz ist die Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden abschaffen!


Bolded in particular amusses me because its so shockingly, blatantly wrong.

Bolded in particular amusses me because its so shockingly, blatantly wrong.

okay, there are other fanatical religions, but by and large, aside from ones like scientology, most religions are happy to be happy with their faith and live normal lives

Hell, I didnt know my Brother's girlfriend was Hare Krishna till he told me

They dont go around door-to-door preaching, but they do put themselves all over the media so you cant avoid seeing them everywhere you look

turn on the TV, oh look, its Fran Drescher and Lisa kudrow
read a magazine, hey its michelle trachtenberg and joan rivers
movies: hey, mel brooks, jeff goldblum, bette midler, dustin hoffman and woody allen

the more i see of their kind the more i like my muslim friends,...well,...so you could say that the jews have helped strengthen some of my friendships:p

but in reality,...you dont see people of other religions waving it everywhere
I dont see those of other religions having to make themselves known, they believe in what they do, and leave it at that

its bad enough with americans acting as if they want to wave the US flag in everyones face and hope that makes them better than anyone else, without the jews having to scream out to the world what they are and how they think they are better

So some Jews becoming famous is equivalent to them forcing their beliefs on others? Seriously?

So some Jews becoming famous is equivalent to them forcing their beliefs on others? Seriously?

No, silly. Some Jews being famous AND occasionally, like, mentioning they're Jewish is them forcing their beliefs on others. Obviously.

I mean, sometimes those bastards even say "oy!" and tell jokes about Jewish mothers! How DARE they!

No, silly. Some Jews being famous AND occasionally, like, mentioning they're Jewish is them forcing their beliefs on others. Obviously.

I mean, sometimes those bastards even say "oy!" and tell jokes about Jewish mothers! How DARE they!

Those bastards! That is just so wrong.

Judaism doesn't have a Greek scripture.Yes it does. And no available Hebrew scripture to predate it. Ain't that ironic?

The Septuagint and Tanakh are substantially different. The Septuagint includes sections of books, and additional books entirely, that are not found in the Tanakh. In addition the Septuagint is not a most literal translation and its words contains implicit theological positions rejected by almost all modern Jews today. A 21st century Greek Jew would rely rather on a rabbinically approved Greek translation of the Tanakh than on the heterodox Septuagint.But when the Septuagint was written, the Tanakh had not been canonized yet. And isn't the Tanakh used today rather the streamlined Masoretic Text?

The Septuagint is a Christian text in that it is used by Christians.What? Most Christians use medieval or modern versions of the Bible. And the Septuagint was originally an exclusively Jewish text.

So some Jews becoming famous is equivalent to them forcing their beliefs on others? Seriously?
Does becoming famous by being nailed to a cross count?

Does becoming famous by being nailed to a cross count?

No.

Thoughts, comments?Burning New Testaments is a good thing, although its a waste of paper (ok, it was that before the burning).
I find it somewhat amusing that in Israel someone would want to make Beta Israel into Christians. Wanna know where the Ark is?

But when the Septuagint was written, the Tanakh had not been canonized yet. And isn't the Tanakh used today rather the streamlined Masoretic Text?

The Tanakh was, by my understanding, compiled and canonized throughout the process of the compilation of the Septuagint

What? Most Christians use medieval or modern versions of the Bible. And the Septuagint was originally an exclusively Jewish text.

I thought it had something to do with the Ptolemies, and their desire to understand their subjects more thoroughly, rather than for purely internal consumption. I might be wrong, though.

What? Most Christians use medieval or modern versions of the Bible.

Yes, nowadays, but it was the foundational text of the Christian Old Testament, at least in the early period, and its influence is still present in the texts regarded as canonical.

And the Septuagint was originally an exclusively Jewish text.

So are all of you going to make my argument for me? :)

The Tanakh was, by my understanding, compiled and canonized throughout the process of the compilation of the Septuagint

Compiled, maybe, but the process of canonization wasn't finalized until much later.

The Tanakh was, by my understanding, compiled and canonized throughout the process of the compilation of the SeptuagintTrue. The Septuagint is the first Tanakh. That's why it's true.


I thought it had something to do with the Ptolemies, and their desire to understand their subjects more thoroughly, rather than for purely internal consumption. I might be wrong, though.However, the Ptolemies (starting with P. 2 Philadelphus) did not write the text. That was done by Jews, who had there a one-in-a-million chance to define their religion.

Compiled, maybe, but the process of canonization wasn't finalized until much later.Well, the beginning of the diaspora marks the end of that process. After the destruction of the Temple (and Joesephus taking the scriptures with him) there was no "authority" to alter the selection of texts anymore, so the canon at that time was what remained. And that's also why it may differ from the selection of texts that Christians used, who were already going their own ways then.

So are all of you going to make my argument for me?What was your argument?

On what basis do you say that? It's been an element of Rabbinic Judaism from the start, and there's Biblical support--see the story of Ruth.

I base it on talking to Jewish people.

Okay, first, who are "Jews"? Reconstructionist Judaism quite explicitly rejects the concept of chosenness.

Second, the meaning of the term "chosen people" is just not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Are there elements of Jewish exceptionalism in Judaism? Yes--just as there are in every other religion.

Well there are a lot of different forms of Judaism, I will usually refer to "true" Judaism i.e. Orthodox, as my Jewish friend is of the Orthodox faith. If you had read a later post I did say that I use the term superior as hyperbole, however, the ancients did believe that they were above non-Jews.

What nonsense. Intermarriage is actually quite common, though it is forbidden. Only a small minority of Jews have the intensely antagonistic attitude towards it that you suggest.

I say it is forbidden and then you say what nonsense and go on to say intermarriage is forbidden. And yes there are Jewish communities that do 'exile' Jews who have married a non-Jew. And regardless many do still and encourage their children to marry other Jews hence the old laws stating that you may only be a Jew if your mother is a Jew, this was designed to ensure that male Jews would marry Jewish women and not gentile women, as many men want their sons to be like them.

I base it on talking to Jewish people.

"Someone told me" really isn't a very good source.

Well there are a lot of different forms of Judaism, I will usually refer to "true" Judaism i.e. Orthodox, as my Jewish friend is of the Orthodox faith.

Then you should be aware that the majority of Jews are not Orthodox.

however, the ancients did believe that they were above non-Jews.

I'm not going to dispute that... but not really more than any other religion believes the same thing.

Judaism is different only in that it locates this exceptionalism in a particular people rather than in a particular belief system.

I say it is forbidden and then you say what nonsense and go on to say intermarriage is forbidden.

"you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community"

That was the part that was nonsense.

And yes there are Jewish communities that do 'exile' Jews who have married a non-Jew.

Maybe... but you didn't say "some Jewish communities", you said "the Jewish community."

And regardless many do still and encourage their children to marry other Jews

So?

"Then you should be aware that the majority of Jews are not Orthodox.

Yes I am aware that there are different forms of Judaism, so what?

I'm not going to dispute that... but not really more than any other religion believes the same thing.

Judaism is different only in that it locates this exceptionalism in a particular people rather than in a particular belief system.

Well that is what I have been saying. Now I know you are about to go all over me what I am about to say. True Christianity and I know many people through the centuries have conveniently forgotten this major part of the teachings of Jesus, "All people are equal in the eyes of God regardless of your beliefs", this was one of the major teachings and yes I know there have been many hypocrites throughout the years. That major teaching was what brought the fury of the Jewish priests because there was this man going around saying Jews weren't above other people they were all the same all equal.



"you will more than likely find yourself exiled from the Jewish community"

That was the part that was nonsense.

Maybe... but you didn't say "some Jewish communities", you said "the Jewish community."

OK I meant to say some Jewish communites which isn't nonsense as some do.

So?

For the reasons I gave, also hence the exile bit

Equivocation doesn't suit you.

Actually - the OP would be the equivocation.

Most of us understand 'bible' to have a certain meaning. If we were to talk about 'bunring bibles' we all know what the story would be about.

The OP was - in it's inaccurate use of the word 'bible' - thus, equivocation.

So - I guess you're right. It doesn't suit me.. so I object to it.

I say it is forbidden and then you say what nonsense and go on to say intermarriage is forbidden. And yes there are Jewish communities that do 'exile' Jews who have married a non-Jew. And regardless many do still and encourage their children to marry other Jews hence the old laws stating that you may only be a Jew if your mother is a Jew, this was designed to ensure that male Jews would marry Jewish women and not gentile women, as many men want their sons to be like them.

born of jewish blood is born of jewish blood, its just like if a kids father was black and their mother white, birth to a white mother means nothing, you dont just cancel out the other half, and even if the child is born white it still carries black genes that may manifest themselves when it is that childs turn to have children

the same rule applies to those with jewish father and non-jew mother, the child still carries jewish genes

on the topic of intermarriage, alot of those jew who marry outside their race, tend to do what they can to convert their non-jew spouse to their side to 'counts as' marrying a jew, or at least insist that any children born to the couple are raised by the jewish faith to amend for the non-jew parent by having a jewish child

Yes I am aware that there are different forms of Judaism, so what?

So instead of using general terms like "Jews", you should qualify them a bit more.

I know many people through the centuries have conveniently forgotten this major part of the teachings of Jesus, "All people are equal in the eyes of God regardless of your beliefs",

Find this for me in the Gospels.

Is it before or after he insists that the only way to Heaven is through him?

Yes it does. And no available Hebrew scripture to predate it. Ain't that ironic?

Did you ever get around to explaining the existence of liberal Jews, given your assesment of Jews and Judaism? Or are you still running away from that one......

Did you ever get around to explaining the existence of liberal Jews, given your assesment of Jews and Judaism? Or are you still running away from that one......I did not claim their existence, you did. Anyways their Jewishness would still be based on religion, either their own or that of their assumed ancestors.

I did not claim their existence, you did. .

That they exist is a fact. According to your definition of Judaism, Jews and all things related they cannot.

Anyways their Jewishness would still be based on religion, either their own or that of their assumed ancestors.

....which, according to you, they cannot be if they are 'liberal'. Explain.