Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

  1. #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamran View Post
    forged page 159
    Page 159 of what, I cannot be sure what book you are talking about

  2. #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamran View Post
    ignoring the jibberish in post 13 we proceed to post 15
    Let me ask you some questions since everyone but you seems to be working in jibberish

    1. Do you ever have any doubts that when it comes to the Gospels you might be wrong?
    2. Have you read ANY other Biblical scholar except Ehrman?
    3. What is your view of Jesus - do you see him as a good man, kind, gentle, caring for the poor, a great teacher or do you have some other view?

  3. #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamran View Post
    on pages 174-175 ehrman talks about UNKNWON christians taking over jewish FORGERIES of the sibylline oracles and christianizing them . he says the oracles were modified by the christian forgers and in them inserted thier own prophecies . the christian forgers tried to fool the readers into believing that prophetess sibyl made prediction about the crucified saviour god. about the jews, the forger put into sibyl's mouth the following ISRAEL , with abominable lips and poisonous spittings will give this man blows, ehrman goes onto say that the forger put into sybyl's mouth ... eventual DESTRUCTION of "the Hebrews " for the evil deed they performed against crist" ehrman's conclusion on 176

    " As you might imagine, pagans intent attacking Christians knew full well that these oracular "predictions" of the coming of Christ, his activities on earth, his rejection by the Jews, and his vindication were not original to an ancient Sibyl, but had been inserted into these writings or created whole cloth by Christian authors. This is one instance in which unknown forgers among the Christians were rightly suspected."
    This is a muddle - which book are you talking about. The usual three Ehrman books are: Misquoting Jesus, Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities?

  4. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    an unknown christian forger put the following words into pontius pilates mouth,

    "The Jews , out of envy, have brought vengeance both on themselves and on those who come after them by thier terrible acts of judgement. They have been oblivious to the promises given to thier ancestors, that God would send them his holy one from heaven ... through a virgin."

    more about this on page 156 in forged

    kamran: all this seems to be ideas taken out of the christian new testament. christians may have assumed that pilate was one of thier own, what to expect if you had no other source of inquiry at that time? note the highlighted words sound very similar to "his blood be upon us and our children"

    ehrman writes on 153

    Pilate continued on as a brutal governor of Judea after the death of jesus. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD to suggest that he even remembered having ordered jesus' execution, let ALONE FELT regret over it.
    Last edited by Kamran; 5th May 2011 at 01:10.

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    ...Luke’s penchant to paint Romans more positive toward Christianity than Jews. I recommend anyone actually READ Acts and see how many times the author blames “the Jews, the Jews, the Jews” whereas the Roman-established authorities are demonstrated as receptive to what the Christians were saying.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    You might also read Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian
    Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton University Press,
    2008).

    QUOTE:
    “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and
    cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again
    see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord
    and Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do
    not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing,
    blaspheming of his son and of his Christians....”

    Note that Luther says that this is to be done in honor “of our Lord
    and Christendom.” So what makes you think the most Christians
    historically have not thought that killing and burning Jews was
    compatible with Jesus’ words?

    The fact is that what many modern American Christians think about
    Jesus' ethics MAY NOT BE representative of what many, or most,
    Christians in the last 2000 years have thought about Jesus' ethics
    towards Jews and toward those who disagreed with him.

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Unlike the Islamic world where Jews were free to read their books in their original forms, the Jews of Europe were forced to read censored versions of the Talmud and other religious texts; this situation–of religious censorship–was widespread all over Europe, with an even worse twist in some areas where the Talmud itself was banned outright or burned; wherever the Catholic Church had reach, the Talmud was attacked, creating a religious “catastrophe” for the Jewish religion:

    At the same time, several European rulers and Church dignitaries were convinced that the Talmud contained anti-Christian material and, on the basis of informers’ chargers, they ordered that all anti-Christian statements and libel against Christ be erased from the books. This anti-talmudic campaign and the various decrees of the popes reached their height when, as the result of internal disputes in the Jewish community and at the urging of certain converts, Pope Gregory IX ordered the burning of copies of the Talmud in Paris in 1240. Similar decrees were issued several times in the course of the thirteenth century, on one occasion by Pope Clement IV in 1264, and thousands of copies were consigned to the flames. The Jews regarded the destruction of the Talmud as an almost unparalleled national catastrophe….The decrees did not encompass all of Europe; in the Iberian Peninsula, for example, the Talmud was not burned but merely censored by statements considered derogatory to Christianity being removed.

    Church leaders were not unanimous in their views on the subject. A Church synod in Basel in 1431 reaffirmed the stringent ban on the Talmud, but there were other opinions as well. In 1509 a convert [to Christianity] named Johannes Pfefferkorn tried to incite church leaders to burn the Talmud in all countries under the rule of Charles V. A Champion appeared, however, in the form of a Christian, Reuchlin, who pleaded the cause of the Talmud. Although the controversy was not settled at once, and copies of the Talmud were burned in several towns by the bishops, Reuchlin’s arguments appear to have had some effect. In 1520 Pope Leo X permitted the printing of the Talmud, and editions appeared in the next few decades. But this situation did not endure…Due to the efforts of several converts, Pope Julius III ordered the work burned again in 1553. This decree carried out in the various Italian states, apparently resulted in the destruction of thousands of copies of the Talmud. The harshness of the decree was alleviated by Pope Pius IV’s announcement at the church synod at Trent in 1564 that the Talmud should be distributed on condition that those sections which affronted the Christian religion were erased. As the direct result of this decision, an edition was printed in Basel under the supervision and censorship of Catholic monks. It was cruelly truncated and censored, but still did not satisfy the Church and, in a papal bull issued in 1592, Clement II finally prohibited study of the Talmud in any version or edition. The ban did not apply to the whole of the Christian world, since large parts of Europe (the Protestant countries and those under Russian and Turkish rule) did not accept the authority of the Catholic Church…A Jewish community which did not study the Talmud was condemned to attrition.

    No similar decree was issued in any other European country [i.e. outside the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church], but there was a widespread tendency to censor the Talmud. In later times printers gradually and clandestinely restored those sections which had been censored, but despite these efforts the best editions of the Talmud are mutilated because of the changes and “corrections” introduced by the censors…

    The Talmud was not the sole work affected by the heavy hand of the censor, but because of its scope and range and the thousands of changes introduced over the centuries, it was impossible to correct all the mutilations even in editions published in countries free of censorship. Offset printing perpetuated many of the mistakes and omissions, and only in the most recent editions have attempts been made to restore the original format of the text. [119]

    http://www.loonwatch.com/?s=jizya&x=0&y=0#refJIZYA

  8. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    In the thirteenth century, Jacob b. Elijah of Venice, a Jew, left his home in France for Venice and later settled in the Muslim East. Blaming Christians for the concentration of Jews in moneylending, Jacob compared the Jewish plight in Christian lands to their more favorable economic situation in Muslim countries. In a well-known polemical letter…Jacob wrote:

    “Among the Orientals, each [Jewish] person makes his livelihood from whatever is his occupation. And, while Arab rulers may be wicked and sinful, they do possess reason and understanding. They take a prescribed tax each year, from the older ones according to his security and from the young according to his youthfulness. It is not this way in our [European] lands nor is it done in our place that way. Our kings and princes think only how to assail and fall upon us, in order to take away our gold and silver.”

    Jacob thus tells us that Jews living in Muslim lands enjoyed occupational diversification and that the taxes Oriental Jews paid were fair rather than arbitrary and exorbitant. Though simplistic, his comparison is accurate, and it shows that, even in the Middle Ages, Jews sensed that the contrast between Jewish well-being in East and West had much to do with economics. [65]

    www.loonwatch.com/?s=jizya&x=0&y=0#refJIZYA

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    as we all know lot of islam bashing is going on in the media and islam is PORTRayed as anti jew .
    as it is typical of christian evangelists they are the dogs who are BARKING the loudest.


    before islam there was not love but great anger between judaism and christianity.

    they say ENGLISH is a christian LANGUAGE
    did anyone see how the english dictionary defines "pharisee"
    it defines it ACCORDING to the CLAIMS of nt.
    because the nt is a christian BOOK.

    define pharisee:
    ( lowercase ) a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person.


    after christians STOPPED doing over each other, they started to do over /attack others.


    for example paul:

    1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 says a lot of nasty things about "the Jews".


    "The Jews"


    · killed the lord Christ. <------------------- this played a major role in killing and nailing hundreds and thousands of jews.


    · killed their own prophets.


    · persecuted the church.


    · do not please God.


    · are against all mankind.


    · try to stop the gospel being preached.


    · are always filling up the totality of all their sins.


    · have suffered the wrath of God to the uttermost finality.


    there is no pharisee jew on this planet who will say that the propaganda in the new testament ACCURATELY speaks of pharisee judaism as a matter of fact new testament never tells us about pharisee judaism's ephasis on the sincerety and love for God ect. it is always trying its best to paint it as a horrible system of life and jesus according to john clearly says that the truth of the pharisees is from the
    devil.

    paul and pagan religions:

    quote:
    Take for instance Acts 17:26 which reads: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." This was one of the most widely used abolitionist texts, Avalos tells us, "which "supposedly establishes that human beings were all created equal." (p. 97). However, the most reliable manuscripts do not have the word "blood" in it. Nonetheless, Paul in this same sermon used a similar expression of the classical writers when he said in v. 28, "...even some of your poets have said..." Avalos then quotes from Seneca, who admonished his readers to "remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies". And he quotes from Cicero, who said "men are grouped with Gods on the basis of blood relationship and descent...there is a blood relationship between ourselves and the celestial beings; or we may call it a common ancestry or origin." Avalos asks: "So why do Christian apologists credit Christianity for initiating the idea of universal brotherhood when even the New Testament says that the idea already existed in non-Christian cultures?" (p. 98)
    end quote

    but nothing good about pharisee judaism in the nt.
    as you all know christians who converted to one sect of christianity were PERSECUTED by christians who belonged to ANOTHER sect. all this is historical reality . following one version of christianity lead to persecution . jesus as portrayed in john has already departed from judaism. if christians were doing over each other ,then what about the "synagouge of satan"?




    WHAT is the favourite gospel of the evangelists? the gospel of john hahahahahahaha
    it is no suprise .


    it is no suprise stuff like this still goes on in america

    read this entire thread to find out the REAL reasons



    "father forgive them for they not what they are doing"

    according to some, the gospels are written in ANTI-SEMITIC greek/italian enviroment.

    http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....306983&page=14




    the "forgiving" statement in luke in not to be found in any other gospel.


    if matthew had known about the statement ,why the need to mention /talk about what happen in the trial scene? why mention that the jews were given a chance to free jesus, but instead had barabus freed instead? why mention that pilate washes his hands i.e clear his name? why mention that the jews and thier unborn children to come take responsibility for killing jesus? "his blood be upon us and our CHILDREN" (not found in luke) <------ IN THIS statement/quotation does it look like that mat wished for the jews to be forgiven? coupled with what they said before this statement/quotation and coupled with "It might be noteworthy, furthermore, that Pilate did not act until after the crowd insisted that they alone took the responsibility of the blood of Jesus upon themselves and their future generations, completely (in their own minds at least) exonerating Pilate. "
    Does it look like that the authour of matthew saw/HEARD a jesus who said, "father forgive them for they know not what they are doing" ? why matthew did not COMPRESS his account ,write the following ,"he was crucified and then cried out to the father to forgive them and then he died" ? matthews unverified quotations attributed to the jews played a massive role in loss of life.the DAMNED RACE (luthers words) were damned and beyond forgiveness.
    think about it friends, if the verbatim ripoff of mark called the gospel according to matthew can add ADDITIONAL words before "elai elai why have you forsaken me", why would he leave out "father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" ?
    think about it , matthew says that the jews claimed , " crucify him, his BLOOD BE UPON US AND OUR children"

    but wait a minuite, matthew is writing decades later and according to luke jc said that they were doing it in ignorace SO WHY did matthew quote what the jews alledgely said (we don't even know if they really would claim responsibility, it is possible matthew made it up .)? didn't the jews say things in IGNORANCE? i don't think matthew believed that they were doing it ignorance, neither did john and mark , only luke creates that line for his own advantage i.e make non-jewish people happy.think about it romans are LAWLESS , while the jews are with LAW
    SO the lawless are ignorant.

    we know how christians have practice their love for the jews in the past, they FABRICATED accounts and put them in pontius pilates mouth and tried thier best to protray the butcher of jews (pilate) as pro christian/jesus ect.

    conclusion:
    don't forget your evil past before you attack islam
    Last edited by ali; 26th November 2011 at 18:05.

  10. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    coverting the jews into pigs and apes is one thing, but yhwh does the following





    However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

    You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

    Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

    The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

    You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

    The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

    The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

    You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation,and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. The sights you see will drive you mad. The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

    The Lord will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors.There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you.

    You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

    The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.

    All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed,because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve the Lord your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst,in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the Lord sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

    The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagleswooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.

    Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

    If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name —the Lord your God— the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God. Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprootedfrom the land you are entering to possess.

    Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There theLord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you. – Deuteronomy 28.





    Jeremiah 44:

    This word came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews living in Lower Egypt —in Migdol, Tahpanhesand Memphis —and in Upper Egypt: “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins because of the evil they have done. They aroused my anger by burning incense to and worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your ancestors ever knew.

    “Therefore this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I am determined to bring disaster on you and to destroy all Judah. I will take away the remnant of Judah who were determined to go to Egypt to settle there. They will all perish in Egypt; they will fall by the sword or die from famine. From the least to the greatest, they will die by sword or famine. They will become a curse and an object of horror, a curse and an object of reproach. I will punish those who live in Egypt with the sword, famine and plague, as I punished Jerusalem. None of the remnant of Judah who have gone to live in Egypt will escape or survive to return to the land of Judah, to which they long to return and live; none will return except a few fugitives.”

    For I am watching over them for harm, not for good; the Jews in Egypt will perish by sword and famine until they are all destroyed. Those who escape the sword and return to the land of Judah from Egypt will be very few. Then the whole remnant of Judah who came to live in Egypt will know whose word will stand —mine or theirs.



    curse hate curse hate curse hate curse hate curse hate









    since the old testament is part of christianity and jesus LOVED the old testament and loved to quote it , i think it is only fair to look at the genocide in the ot


    http://religionatthemargins.com/2010...shua-delusion/

    Thom Stark:

    The hyperbolic reading of the Joshua genocides (the first of the aforementioned strategies) is wholly untenable for a number of reasons, as I have pointed out in the past. For instance, in Judges 20-21, there is a story in which the allied tribes of Israel launch an attack against the Benjamites, another Israelite tribe, because some men from the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn over a handful of criminals to meet justice for their rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite man who was passing through their territory. The response of the allied Israelite tribes, as instructed and affirmed by Yahweh, was to utterly wipe out the tribe of Benjamin for the crimes of a few men. They attacked the Benjamite soldiers, a small number of whom escaped from the battle. The Israelites then proceeded to massacre every last woman and child in the land of Benjamin.

    The problem for the hyperbolic reading of such slaughters comes with the second half of the story. The Israelites decided to show mercy on the tribe of Benjamin, not desiring to blot them out forever. The problem they face, however, is that there are only a few hundred remaining men (the soldiers who escaped), who no longer have wives and children. Why? Because the slaughters were not exaggerated. The Benjamite women and children were literally annihilated, completely. So to solve their little problem, the Israelites decide to attack a neighboring town; they slaughter all of the men, women, and children, with the exception of a few hundred virgin girls who are captured and forced to become wives to the surviving Benjamite soldiers. This is just one example of several to show that a hyperbolic reading is wholly untenable.




    This theme is spelled out in the stories of Rahab and Achan. Rahab has three things going against her: she is a Canaanite, she is a prostitute, and she is a woman. But because of her faith and loyalty to Yahweh (she betrays her own people by helping the Israelite spies to escape, and by not warning the people of Jericho about its impending doom), she and her family are integrated into Israel. An outsider comes in. On the other hand, Achan, who is a pure-blooded Israelite, disobeys Yahweh’s orders and takes some spoil from the destruction site of Jericho. Everything in Jericho was to be devoted to destruction, and was therefore off limits. But Achan coveted, and as a result, he and his whole family (not to mention his animals) were executed by the community on orders coming straight from the top. An insider goes out.





    The claims of hyperbolists like Flannagan and Copan are undermined by Earl’s reading of Joshua in another way. They often attempt to use contradictions in the text in their favor. For instance, populations that were said to have been utterly destroyed in Joshua 10-12 are still alive and mounting resistance in the latter half of Joshua, as well as in the book of Judges. The hyperbolists say that, since the author wasn’t stupid, the contradictions indicate that the language of total destruction is not to be taken literally. If it says in one part of the book that an entire population was killed, but that population is still alive later on, then it is clear that the earlier statement was hyperbolic in nature, not to be taken literally. The earlier claims were exaggerated, but the more realistic statements later on are cues to read the earlier claims as hyperbolic.



    But Earl argues that the book of Joshua is composite in nature. The first half of the book, chapters 1-12, was written by the Deuteronomistic historian,1 but chapters 13-22 were written by the Priestly writer.2 Chapter 23 returns again to the concerns of the Deuteronomistic historian, and according to Earl, chapter 24 (the final chapter) represents a more generic summary. *



    Once again, hyperbolists will not find a helpful resource in Earl. If Earl is correct that Joshua is two-part composite, that sufficiently explains the contradictions between the summaries of military victories. The latter half of Joshua does not contradict the former in order to provide a cue to read the earlier statements as hyperbolic; they are contradictory because they represent two different sources with two different agendas.




    To this latter question, Earl answers, “no.” He argues, and will argue more thoroughly in a forthcoming book, that there is no evidence that the Book of Joshua was used to justify the Crusades, or the Conquest of the Americas, and so on. I will have to read this book. Essentially what his argument amounts to is that Joshua seems never to have been explicitly cited or quoted in these campaigns, but this is only a half-truth. It was most certainly alluded to. It is heavily documented that the Christian settlers in North America saw themselves as a New Israel, saw the Natives as the Canaanites, and America as the New Promised Land. Nevertheless, regardless of the proper answer to this latter question, the former question remains. Even if it wasn’t used to justify later conquests, genocides, and holy wars, that doesn’t resolve the problem of the narrative itself being thoroughly morally problematic—as even Evangelical scholar Christopher J. H. Wright insists in his response chapter at the end of the book (142).



    To this latter question, Earl answers, “no.” He argues, and will argue more thoroughly in a forthcoming book, that there is no evidence that the Book of Joshua was used to justify the Crusades, or the Conquest of the Americas, and so on. I will have to read this book. Essentially what his argument amounts to is that Joshua seems never to have been explicitly cited or quoted in these campaigns, but this is only a half-truth. It was most certainly alluded to. It is heavily documented that the Christian settlers in North America saw themselves as a New Israel, saw the Natives as the Canaanites, and America as the New Promised Land. Nevertheless, regardless of the proper answer to this latter question, the former question remains. Even if it wasn’t used to justify later conquests, genocides, and holy wars, that doesn’t resolve the problem of the narrative itself being thoroughly morally problematic—as even Evangelical scholar Christopher J. H. Wright insists in his response chapter at the end of the book (142).



    Note also that the town they destroyed was renamed “Hormah” which is derivative of the herem root, and means “destruction.” So herem used in this sense is certainly not unique to the Deuteronomistic historian, and this undermines his contention that it only functions in a symbolic way



    Earl’s contention that herem is only ever used in reference to the distant past or the distant future is also fallacious, since it is used in 1 Samuel 15 when Saul is given instructions to apply herem to the Amalekites. Moreover, as noted, this kind of warfare was common, whether it went by the descriptive term herem or not. For instance, David practiced herem style warfare, as seen in 1 Sam 27:9, although the term was not used in that instance.



    We’re seeing more and more of Earl the Apologist here. He doesn’t actually display Deuteronomy 7:1-5. If he did, it would undermine his claim quite patently:



    When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you—and when Yahweh your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy [herem] them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of Yahweh would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire.



    According to Earl, the prohibition of making covenants with the people of the land is an indication that the prescription to kill them all should not be taken literally. After all, if they’re all dead, how could they make a covenant with them! This argument is bordering on ridiculous, to be frank. Note that right after the text says, “make no covenant with them” it says, “show them no mercy.” To make a covenant with them would be to show them mercy. The opposite of showing them mercy is to kill them. What the text is doing is holding up herem and covenant-making as alternatives. If they didn’t kill everybody, then they would have made a covenant of peace with them. They are not to do this; rather, they are to kill everybody.



    Earl never mentions Deuteronomy 20. There a distinction is made between the people of the land of Canaan and those outside the borders allotted to Israel by Yahweh. Those inside the borders are to be utterly destroyed and no covenant is to be made with them. Conversely, Israel is permitted to make covenants of peace with the people outside the allotted borders. Earl keeps stretching to make a case for a figurative understanding of herem, and he keeps failing.


    (On a side note with regard to the prohibition of peace treaties with the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7, it is noteworthy that Josh 11:18 seems to indicate that peace treaties were in fact offered to the Canaanites, even if only to make the point that the Canaanites refused to make any peace treaties because, as verse 20 states, Yahweh hardened their hearts to prevent them from doing so, so that Yahweh could accomplish his purpose of giving the land to Israel.)7




    For Earl this is significant because it underlines his theme that Joshua is not about warfare; rather, it is about what it means to have right relationship with Yahweh through observance of the law. But in fact the majority of critical scholars see the reference to Torah observance in this passage to be a later interpolation. Let’s look at the text:




    Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you may be successful wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for Yahweh your God is with you wherever you go.



    Most critical scholars who deal with this text believe that the portion in italics above is a later addition to the text, because it does not fit the broader context of the passage, which is certainly a commission to warfare. The military terminology used throughout (which Earl notes) makes this clear. For a full argument in this regard, and for the relevant scholarship, see Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence, 137-141. Joshua could hardly meditate on the law day and night if he is to be spending the days and nights ahead in battle! The exhortation to Torah observance is very foreign to the context. Earl does not note the scholarly discussion here.


    CANAANITES CONTAMINATED



    As a result of Achan’s sin, Israel lost their next battle because Yahweh’s anger was “burning against Israel” on account of Achan. In other words, Achan contaminated the camp when he brought the spoil from Jericho into it; the spoil was supposed to be devoted to destruction and when it came into contact with the camp, it brought Yahweh’s wrath against all of Israel. The camp was infected with the forbidden spoil.

    Earl contends that the herem was not a contagion, but simply that Achan’s sin was disobedience to the covenant. “Achan thus symbolizes the non-Israelite as one who disregards Yahweh” (75). But Earl’s reading is belied by the text itself. Achan was not just punished for his disobedience. Let’s look at what the text really says. After Achan was found out and he confessed his sin, he told Joshua that the herem objects were hidden under his tent.

    So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and there it was, hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. They took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites; and they spread them out before Yahweh. Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, with the silver, the mantle, and the bar of gold, with his sons and daughters, with his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? Yahweh is bringing trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned them with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then Yahweh turned from his burning anger. Therefore that place to this day is called the Valley of Achor. (Josh 7:22-26)

    The nature of the reaction of Joshua and the rest of the camp makes it clear that the herem objects are seen as a contagion. Everything they touch becomes herem as well. “Why did you bring trouble on us?” Achan’s name, as Earl rightly notes, is a play on the word achar, which means “trouble.” So too with the Valley of Achor—trouble. Not just Achan, the troublemaker, but his entire family, his livestock, his tent, and all of his material possessions are stoned, destroyed by fire, and then covered up with a pile of stones for good measure. This is because they were contaminated by their proximity to the herem objects. Again, Earl attempts to evade the obvious in order to make his case that Joshua is essentially about covenant loyalty. For Earl, Achan’s sin is not bringing the contagion into the camp, but his disobedience to the covenant. Earl claims that “it is disobedience to Yahweh that is the contagion, and not herem” (76). But Earl makes it an either/or when it is not.

    Yes, Achan’s sin was disobedience, but, significantly, the herem objects were also contagions. Achan, his family, his livestock, and all his material possessions had to be destroyed, not because Achan was disobedient to the covenant generally speaking, but because his disobedience entailed exposure to the contagion. Otherwise, there would be no need to burn his tent and his daughter’s underwear and bury the ashes thereof under a pile of rubble. The herem objects were a contagion because they were Canaanite wares. By bringing it into his tent, Achan had made himself and his family a Canaanite family, and by bringing into the camp, he had threatened to make Israel as the Canaanites to Yahweh. There is certainly symbolism here, but there is also a great deal of standard ancient superstition. After all, Deuteronomy 7 and 20 did warn them that the Canaanites were contaminated



    Earl then contends that Achan’s family is only killed in order “to make the contrast complete”—that is, the contrast between Achan and Rahab (76). Rahab’s family is spared along with her, and Achan’s family is killed along with him. But this is tenuous. We have already noted that it was not only Achan and his family who were killed, but also his animals; additionally, all of his material possessions were destroyed. They were killed and destroyed because the herem objects were a contagion, not in order to make the contrast complete. Moreover, Rahab’s family was spared not for any symbolic reason, but because Rahab asked the spies to swear on oath that she and her family would be spared when Israel returned to destroy Jericho. It would be the natural thing for her to insist upon. She may have been a traitor to her own people, but she wasn’t so bad as to allow her own kin to perish, too.



    In chapter 8, Israel, now free of contamination, fights another battle and wins. Earl notes that in this next battle, Israel is permitted to take spoils, although the humans are still to be utterly destroyed.


    ISRAELITES AGRESSORS


    Earl writes that in these “most developed ‘battle accounts’ in Joshua, the conquest proceeds as a defensive reaction against military aggression” (80). That is certainly the way the text portrays the events, but Earl offers no critique of this perspective. I have done so in my book.8 Claims of “defensive wars” in the text reek of apologetic justification. Israel is the aggressor here. They are commissioned to take the entire land of Canaan from all of its inhabitants, and they were ordered to do so whether the Canaanite kings fought back or not. If we’re to take these accounts at face value, the Canaanite kings are only responding to Israelite aggression. Israel’s first battles are surprise attacks, and they were moving throughout the land attacking one city after another. It would only be appropriate for the other Canaanite cities to be worried and to mount counter-attacks in response. Earl wants the aggression of the Canaanite kings to count as evidence that Joshua is not about genocide, but while it may be true that Joshua is not “about” genocide, that certainly isn’t because some of the battles are (deceptively) portrayed as defensive



    Israel was ordered to annihilate them long before they got aggressive, long before they were even aware of Israel’s existence



    And as noted, although Josh 11:18 seems to imply that peace treaties were offered to these kings, Yahweh prevented them from making peace, by hardening the kings’ hearts, in order to give the land to Israel

    Josh 23:5. To say that Yahweh will drive them out is not to say that no warfare is in view. Rather, it is the standard language of divine warfare in the ancient Near East. Yahweh does the fighting for Israel. Throughout the book of Joshua, this is in fact the way that the battles are frequently portrayed



    Genocide is always justified by reference to cleansing the land of the negative influence, and is championed in the name of faithfulness to this or that ideology. Joshua is no different in this respect from the Nazi propaganda materials that avoided portrayals of the violence and focused instead on anecdotes and stories of heroic individuals who were symbols of what it meant to be a “true German.”



    1 Sam 27:9, where David and his men are killing women and children in skirmishes, with Yahweh’s support



    Rowlett shows how much of the language and descriptions of violence in the Book of Joshua is taken from notorious Assyrian warfare practices, practices with which the average Israelite was very familiar. For instance, in Joshua 10, Joshua executes five Canaanite kings and hangs their corpses from trees on public display. This was an Assyrian practice that was used to incite terror in their enemies. Thus, the Book of Joshua uses the most terrifying images of violence available in order to terrify the Judean populace into obedience. As the ideal leader after the model of Joshua, Josiah was to be seen as a ruthless and merciless enemy to those who commit infractions against the new law. But in that way, Josiah is to be seen as the ideal king who does the will of Yahweh completely. Thus it is said of Joshua:

    As Yahweh had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:15)



    Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. (2 Kgs 23:25)



    the Israelites say to Joshua at the opening of the book, “Whoever rebels against your orders and disobeys your words, whatever you command, shall be put to death” (Josh 1:18).


    Here is a warning to the populace in Josiah’s day: if you rebel against Josiah’s new law, you will be executed. In short, the violence and the herem in the Book of Joshua are not incidental to the story. They are there to incite terror in the hearts of the seventh century Judean populace


    *

    No serious biblical scholar would identify Joshua as the author of the
    book of Joshua, not even Evangelical scholar Lawson Younger,
    whom the apologists frequently use in their favor. Younger, unlike
    Copan (it seems), is aware that the book of Joshua had multiple
    authors and was composed over a matter of centuries. Moreover,
    Israelites didn’t even have writing in Joshua’s day! Writing didn’t
    develop in Israel until the eleventh century BCE at the earliest,
    about two hundred years after the period of the purported con-
    quest of Canaan.


    As noted, the book of Joshua is composite.

    It contains different sources, composed by different authors and
    shaped by different editors, over a matter of centuries. And the
    same goes for the book of Judges. Source and redaction critics


    would not take Copan’s argument seriously, not for a second, be-
    cause they understand that ancient redactors did not abide by
    modern standards of narrative consistency. Apologists will often
    make the uninformed claim that if a redactor put two contradicto-
    ry sources together, either the redactor was really stupid, or the
    redactor wasn’t affirming both sources in a literal sense. But this
    is an utterly false dichotomy.

    This calls for an extended digression on source and redaction
    criticism:

    What source critics understand is that (1) ancient redactors
    weren’t as bothered by these sorts of contradictions as we
    moderns are, and (2) for the most part their M.O. was to faithfully
    preserve their source material, allowing contradictions to stand.
    (They hadn’t heard about the doctrine of inerrancy yet.) So a few
    tiqqune sopherim (pious scribal alterations of the text) notwith-
    standing, scribes were interested in preserving their source mate-
    rial intact.

    Redactors compiled source materials not as a modern would,
    in order to weave a seamless, consistent narrative, but rather to
    bring together various traditions into one body. Their reasons for
    doing this were often political. As one people with one set of tra-
    ditions came together with another people with another set of
    traditions, redactors would combine the traditions so that the
    new unity of the two peoples is reflected in the new unity of their
    various traditions. This political motivation is seen especially in
    the combination of traditions from the Yahwist and the Elohist,
    reflecting the period after the fall of the Northern Kingdom when
    many Israelites migrated south to live among their Judean kins-
    men.

    This is abundantly clear all over the Hebrew Bible, perhaps
    nowhere more so than in the flood narrative. The flood narrative
    preserves two separate accounts of the flood, spliced together in a
    loose chronological order, each of which reflects a very different
    account of the flood. They are contradictory, but they stand to-
    gether in one composite narrative, contradictions intact.

    Now look at the two flood traditions from the Yahwist and the
    Priestly Writer. Take a few minutes to read the composite, final
    form of the flood narrative first (download here), and then take a
    few additional minutes to read the two sources as source critics
    have teased them out, side-by-side (download here). Come back
    when you’re done.

    Now, as is clear from the reading, both sources present virtu-
    ally complete flood accounts in their own right, but with numer-
    ous contradictions from one to the other. If the redactor of these
    two traditions thought the texts weren’t contradictory, then he
    really must have been stupid! But source critics don’t think the
    redactor was stupid. The redactor’s purpose was not to combine
    the sources into a coherent, internally consistent narrative, but
    rather to combine the narratives in a way that allows them to
    maintain their distinctiveness while at the same time uniting
    them. Redactors cared about their source material, not because
    they thought it was “inerrant,” but because the source material
    reflected the traditions of the peoples. When the post-exilic redac-
    tor compiled these two flood narratives, he was doing so on be-
    half of two traditions both of which continued to be represented
    by the inhabitants of a post-exilic Judea.


    Whenever we read the Hebrew Bible, we must remember that the literature was entirely
    within the domain of the elites. Only a small minority of the popu-
    lation was literate, and those were the elites. The vast majority of
    the population could neither read nor write, so apart from their
    oral traditions, folk and campfire tales (think Deborah; think Lot’s
    daughters seducing him and giving birth to two of Israel’s biggest
    enemies—the Moabites and the Ammonites), the population de-
    pended upon the elite to read to them from the official literature,
    and the elite were able to choose what was read, when it was
    read, how it was read, and what wasn’t read. Just because we have
    it in the fourteen different Bibles on our bookshelf in the living
    room doesn’t mean that was the case for the average Israelite and
    Judean. Writing was the domain of the elites, and it is easy for us
    to forget that and just assume that the average Israelite had it all
    laid out right in front of her at her ready disposal. So that’s anoth-
    er reason why contradictions weren’t such a big deal to redactors.

    There are clear contradictions all over the Hebrew Bible, but
    that in itself isn’t a big deal, except for inerrantists who anachro-
    nistically project their own standards of truth back onto an an-
    cient Near Eastern context (emphasis on the eastern, as opposed
    to the western).


    But there’s another really problematic point to be made here
    about this assumption. As noted, the Hebrews didn’t have writing
    until about two hundred years after the time of Joshua, at the ear-
    liest. And think about it. Copan claims that Joshua 9-12 is written
    using standard literary devices from ancient Near Eastern war-
    fare literature (172). Sure, but here’s the real question: how on
    earth would Joshua, who was only a young man in the wilderness
    period (Num 11:28), and who was most assuredly illiterate, have
    access to or any knowledge of ancient Near Eastern warfare litera-
    ture? This is absurd. So to posit Joshua as the author, and then to
    claim that he was just using the language of a standard literary
    genre, is just incredibly naïve.62

    62 On the origin of writing and the nature of literacy in ancient Israel, see the
    seminal monograph by my former professor, Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and
    Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Socie-
    ty of Biblical Literature, 2010).

    Second, Copan keeps insisting that “Joshua” wasn’t being de-
    ceptive when “he” painted a portrait of total annihilation. How
    does Copan know this? How does Copan pretend to know that the
    author of this portion of Joshua didn’t intend for the rhetoric to be
    believed? The only thing Copan can do here is conflate the two
    sources in Joshua and claim that the contradictions should direct
    us to read the picture of total annihilation as hyperbole. But Co-
    pan can’t know that the author wasn’t being deceptive, or that the
    author wasn’t intentionally painting a portrait of total annihila-
    tion to serve an ideological agenda. And here Copan’s scholarly
    source, Lawson Younger, is very instructive. Younger rightly iden-
    tifies the motivation for such a portrait:



    The historical narrative in which Joshua 9-12 is
    cast utilizes a common transmission code observa-
    ble in numerous ancient Near Eastern conquest ac-
    counts, employing the same ideology. [T]he ideolo-
    gy which lies behind the text of Joshua is one like
    that underlying other ancient Near Eastern con-
    quest accounts—namely, imperialistic.63

    63 K. Lawson Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 255.

    64 Ibid., 234.

    65 Ibid., 235.



    Younger writes that under this imperialistic ideology, “victory
    must be described in black and white terms since there is only a
    ‘them’ vs. ‘us’ relationship.”64 Regarding the ideology underlying
    the ancient Near Eastern warfare texts, Younger says that it is
    about the “‘establishment’ of the particular culture, i.e., in the elite
    power structures of the culture,” and he concludes that this is
    what’s going on in Joshua 9-12 as well.65

    Copan wants to read the exaggerated rhetoric as innocuous,
    just a way of talking that didn’t have any particular agenda behind
    it, like saying, “Man, the stadium was full!” when in reality there
    were still two hundred scattered empty seats in the stadium. But
    this ignores the class and political dynamics of this kind of dis-
    course. Remember that in the ancient world, it was the elite ruling
    classes who controlled the literature, and it was only they who
    had reading and writing capabilities. Exaggerated warfare rheto-
    ric needs to be understood as an expression of imperial power,
    and it emphatically cannot be taken for granted that the populace
    understood this rhetoric to be hyperbolic. It was propaganda!
    When a king had his servants record his battles, they were
    trumped up precisely to inspire fear and obedience in his subjects
    and in his enemies. And sometimes, kings even had outright lies
    recorded as history, in order to save face. (Copan denies that such
    exaggeration constitutes “falsehoods,” at least in Joshua. But I’d
    like to know Copan’s definition of a “falsehood.” If the exaggera-
    tion were that Joshua killed 20,000 noncombatants, when in fact
    he only killed 19,768, fine. That’s not a falsehood. But if the exag-
    geration involves claiming that he killed every last Canaanite in
    the land, when in fact the Canaanites continued to live in the land
    for hundreds of years and were still strong enough to keep on en-
    gaging Israel in battle, then that constitutes a falsehood.) Thus,
    when Copan says that the average ancient Near Eastern “reader”
    was clued in to this sort of thing, and that they would have easily
    identified this sort of language as hyperbolic, and concluded that
    the accounts weren’t mean to be literally true (171), he’s only
    displaying his naïveté about these class dynamics. The popula-
    tion, first of all, weren’t “readers”—they were hearers. The texts
    were read to them by the elite, and the texts were designed to
    glorify the king, and to inspire fear and obedience within the
    king’s subjects and his enemies. And this is the case with the
    rhetoric in Joshua 1-12.




    Their presense is there because the izrael’s could not do what was commanded

    I have already pointed out that Canaanites were still in the land as late as the reign of Solomon. Their presence means only that the Israelites didn't do what Yahweh had presumably commanded. That command, as we have noted numerous times now, was to destroy totally the Canaanites (Deut. 7:2) and to leave none of them alive to breathe (Deut. 20:16; Josh. 10:40; Josh. 11:12-15), so the presence of Canaanites in the land years after the alleged conquest could mean only that the Israelites did not do as Yahweh had commanded them, but it would in no way prove that Yahweh really didn't want the Israelites to destroy totally the Canaanite nations. I have a simple question for Mr. Miller, which I really don't expect him to answer: If Yahweh didn't want the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, why did he command them to destroy them TOTALLY, as the passages that I cited immediately above plainly show that he did?




    he had selected the Israelites to be his "chosen people" (Deut. 7:6) above "all the peoples on the face of the earth." With that assumption, we can determine that if he commanded the Israelites to destroy totally the Canaanites and to leave none of them alive to breathe, as passages that we have repeatedly quoted plainly say (Deut. 7:1-2; 20:16-17; Josh. 10:40; 11:10-12,14-15), then he would have been displeased with the Israelite failure to carry out the command. We can conclude this by Yahweh's reaction when king Saul disobeyed his command to destroy totally the Amalekites and to spare none of them, including children and infants and livestock (1 Sam. 15:1-3). When Saul kept just one Amalekite alive, i. e., their king, and the best of their livestock, Yahweh threw a tantrum, sent the prophet Samuel to reprimand Saul and to hack king Agag to pieces (1 Sam. 15:10-33). If Yahweh was this angry about the Israelite failure to destroy totally the Amalekites, as he had commanded them, why should we not think that he was also angry at the Israelite failure to destroy totally the Canaanites? Mr. Miller evidently wants to see the lingering presence of Canaanites in the land as an indication that Yahweh had been merciful toward them, but I assume everyone noticed that he neither cited nor quoted any scripture that so claimed. I, however, have quoted or cited where Yahweh ordered the Israelites to show no mercy to the Canaanites (Deut. 7:2,16). As Mr. Miller pursues his attempt to make Yahweh Mr. Nice Guy, notice that he consistently fails to support this claim with biblical citations.
    Last edited by theman09; 26th August 2012 at 21:41.

  11. #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by theman09 View Post
    coverting the jews into pigs and apes is one thing, but yhwh does the following
    Tell, me does Islam teach hatred of Jews and Christians?

    Looking at the passages you quoted I cannot see that in them we are taught to hate anyone?

    I take it that you do not subscribe to God's judgement? So all of those verses in the Quran that tell us about molten brass being poured over people for eternity you repudiate?

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    http://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-dev...ospel-of-john/

    The Father of the Jews is the Father of the Devil

    The passage that sparked April DeConick’s particular interest in the Gospel of John was the Greek working in 8:44

    ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ
    you of the father the devil are

    DeConick explains (my bolding):

    With the article preceding πατρός, the phrase του διαβόλου is a genitive phrase modifying the nominal phrase έκ του πατρός.. Thus: “You are from the father of the Devil.” If the statement were to mean, as the standard English translation renders it, “You are of the father, the Devil,” then ‘the article preceding πατρός would not be present.

    Look at the complete verse as it is normally translated into English:

    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (KJV)

    “Father of it” does sound a wee awkward. Notice how Youngs Literal Translation treats that last phrase:

    . . . . because he is a liar — also his father.

    And that’s what April DeConick also points out is the “literal reading of John 8:44f

    . . . . because he is a liar and so is his father.

    So John 8:44 speaks the father of the Devil.

    This is the same god the Jews worship, the one who created the world and gave them the many commandments of the law.

    Elsewhere in the same speech (John 8:12ff) in the Temple Jesus proclaims that his own father is unknown to the Jews. If the Jews knew the Father of Jesus they would not be seeking to kill him. So in chapter 8 of the Gospel of John Jesus speaks of two different fathers — one is the father of Jesus and those who believe in him and keep his commandments; the other is the father of the Jews and the Devil.

    April DeConick further argues that this claim about the Jews’ parentage is in effect a claim that the Jews by nature sinners — liars and murderers. Christians, or the people of the Church, Jesus is supposedly saying, are by nature sinless because they belong to a different family, begotten by a different Father.


    http://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-dev...ospel-of-john/

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by theman09 View Post
    http://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-dev...ospel-of-john/

    The Father of the Jews is the Father of the Devil

    April DeConick further argues that this claim about the Jews’ parentage is in effect a claim that the Jews by nature sinners — liars and murderers. Christians, or the people of the Church, Jesus is supposedly saying, are by nature sinless because they belong to a different family, begotten by a different Father.


    http://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-dev...ospel-of-john/
    Christians don't believe that Jesus said they are by nature sinless nor did Jesus say that. The NT Bible states for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Ro 3:23 and Ro 6
    Jesus is not valued (at all) unless he is valued above all. Augustine

Similar Threads

  1. Can Islam and Christianity really coexist?
    By Calov in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 28th September 2010, 00:24
  2. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 14th August 2010, 20:53
  3. Why is Islam better than Christianity, if so?
    By kapadokya@ymail.com in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 9th September 2008, 14:21
  4. Prayer in Islam and Christianity
    By JoeChristian in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 20th October 2004, 18:11
  5. Judaism, Christianity, Islam
    By jonastheprophet in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th December 2003, 05:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •