Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:07 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
When you are not ARG'ing or playing Halo 2...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 4 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
ariock
Has a Posse


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

 		Ah what fun we have
Since if I chime in, DreamoftheRood will start complaining to admins, I will just say this:

It appears that putting a quote in a spoiler, Unspoilers the text inside the quote. As you can see, all of Phaedra's spoiler text is now quite visible in thebruce's spoiler text.

To fix this, you can do the following (I am using html-style tags to make them show):

<spoiler> Words Words
<quote="Name"></spoiler><spoiler> Quoted Words</quote>
Extensive Response to Quoted Words
<quote="Name"></spoiler><spoiler>More Quoted Words</quote>
Subsequent Extensive Response to More Quoted Words
</spoiler>

Which will look like this:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Words Words
Name wrote:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Quoted Words

Extensive Response to Quoted Words
Name wrote:
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
More Quoted Words

Subsequent Extensive Response to More Quoted Words


I know it isn't pretty and violates every tag convention ever...but just adding an additional set of </spoiler><spoiler> tags after every <quote> tag, should take care of it.

And thebruce, I am sorry, but I couldn't resist, it is just meant in fun. Very Happy Your response in the "T, S, aOSYDWtR" thread had to be a record. I was originally going to wait til that thread was forgotten by most and then respond, but I got sick of the trolls. So now, I will either post a response on my website or blog. Maybe the blog so I can allow responses...And so it can have more than just the one entry. Laughing Anyway, it will be somewhere free of the complaints of a vocal fRoo...I mean few. Wink
_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:05 pm
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		ok, last one, then if it still goes on, I'll take it to private PM... don't want this to unnecessarily escalate...
Phaedra, I love you Smile the post is (holy cow!) long, and it'll be the last long one of mine in the thread on this topic. If anything, I greatly respect you now more than I did before; thanks for your intelligent input, as well as anyone else in the discussion. This post is my last one on this topic here, in an attempt to re-rail the thread Smile hopefully everyone else will attempt the re-rail too... at least, not a derail in the magnitude of this post Shocked
Anyway, to the post...

thebruce wrote:
But when you make a movie that reopens old wounds, when you revive a somewhat faded art form that has historically been associated with persecution, you have a responsibility to make sure that your version is severed from those historical ties. You have a responsibility, when you stick your movie out there for public consumption, to make statements that make it clear that that sort of prejudice is wrong, and unacceptable to you.

Gibson did exactly the opposite.

The movie itself was quite far from exactly the opposite. Numerous times in throughout the movie it was quite obvious that everyone had a role in either comdemning him or having the ability to save him, or at least wishing he was saved. Regardless of marketing strategies, Jews were very much not depicted as the killers of Jesus.

Quote:
And sure, as a marketing strategy, it was brilliant, even if it was ethically revolting: The Movie That The Jews Don't Want You To See.

I don't recall seeing that myself, but I agree, that was a phrase that may have crossed the line of neutrality. But I'm sure that wasn't meant as a finger-pointing at Jews. Moreso, I would have seen it pointing towards the differing beliefs that Jesus was the Messiah vs not so. And many Jew and Gentile both believe those claims. Again, nothing anti-anyone there. But that phrase alone, yes, may have caused an uproar in people who want to believe the movie is anti-semitic.

Quote:
Portraying a nude female is *very* different from portraying a group of people, historically persecuted, tortured and killed for a crime they did not commit, as a bloodthirsty mob calling out for that same crime.

Again, I won't wrong you for that statement since you haven't seen the movie. But 'Jews' weren't an angry bloodthirsty mob calling out for his death. Some did, some did not. Some romans did, some did not. The bloodlust for Jesus was carried by many people, and not one individual group as a whole. Many Jews loved Jesus and wished the torture to stop. Many soldiers had the ability to stop people from hurting him more than he had to suffer, but they chose to allow it, even torturing and hurting him themselves. At no point in the movie are Jews held solely accountable for Jesus' death, and as said before, Jesus himself said he chose to give up his life, quite an obvious statement that anyone who believes Jews killed Jesus and hates Jews because of it is wrong.

Quote:
Argh! Which wasn't a *crime,* by the way, it was a Roman-sanctioned *execution*! By, you know, the Romans! It's understandable why a Roman Catholic would want to play down that aspect, but still...!

So perhaps the issue isn't so much with the movie. Maybe if there was a censored version you might see it, I dunno. If it's the violence you don't want, I'd still strongly recommend you review the script, or something, to better understand the points declared in the movie. A true understanding of the Bible and the Gospels cannot lead to anyone's blame for the death of Jesus.

Quote:
And "doesn't necessarily have any connection to today outside of the misguided fanatics of any belief system"?

I see it as very relevant to today, and it will remain relevant until there is no danger of any major outbreak of antisemitic sentiment happening again.


Unfortunately, you're right. This kind of hatred will never end. It didn't end with Hitler, it didn't end with the UN, it won't ever end. No movie, no preacher, no president or prime minister or any elect will be able to end the kind of hatred that exists. But if we don't stand up and try to stop it, then what point is there in doing anything? This movie was precisely that attempt - to present the truth in a way that contradicts exactly the foundation of the hatred. Those who choose to see that truth will come to realize they were wrong in hating Jews. Those who choose not to, will end up continuing their hatred, and twist the movie to fit their own agenda.

Quote:
We're not there when I'm at my (non-Jewish) relatives' house, and their neighbor comes over to chat, and starts bashing his Jewish boss. Now, if your boss is a jerk, you have the right to bash him, regardless of his ethnicity or religion. But that's different from what he did -- for him, the boss was a jerk because he was Jewish.

Shame, shame on him! Really, I sympathize.

Quote:
We're not there when, during a game of Monopoly, a non-Jewish player, asking a non-Jewish player for mercy, says, "Oh come on -- take off your yarmulke and give me a break."

Again, a joke that for most people will be crossing the line. I hate it when people makes jokes about God, about Jesus, and it irks me when people assume to know Christianity, or what I think or believe, based on the ramblings of someone claiming to speak the Truth, when it clearly contradicts the Bible. I get extremely annoyed when people play me and troll me by joking about something they know annoys me. I can't laugh at comedies that make fun of other races, other beliefs, crudity... one person's laugh is another person's pain. At the same time, some people make fun of themselves and are perfectly fine with it. But who am I to make that judgement call? If I'm not 100% positive that a joke I say will be taken as a joke, I won't say it, otherwise there will be a lot of mending to do, after it's too late to take it back.

Quote:
We're not there when, on MSNBC, a representative of the Catholic League says, and I quote: "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

Sad, very sad. In an extreme way.

Quote:
We're not there when synagogues in California are defaced with Nazi symbols.
We're not there when antisemitism in Europe is on the rise.
We're not there when textbooks in Arab schools present absurd antisemitic fantasies as historical fact.
We're not there when Jews in various countries still live under the threat of violence.

Do you hear my frustration, here?

WE'RE NOT THERE.

I hear you. And I don't know what to say. Honestly. I'm not in your position, I'm not in your boots.
Yet, in a way, I deal with persecution of my own. How often do we read about something that happens involved a 'Christian' by name, and suddenly the entire secular world pounces on it and blames Christianity, blames God, blames church, everything that I hold dear? As a Christian, my name is dirtied as well... it hurts finding a light hearted discussion which has somehow randomly turned into a Christian-hate fest, especially when there aren't any Christians there to make any kind of defense. Christians are hated as well. Not in the same way, or likely nearly as fanatical as anti-semitism, but it's there, so I hear you.

(cont...)
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:30 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Quote:
And until we are There, until we have reached a place where antisemitic, or anti-black, or anti-Hmong, or anti-anyone else stereotypes and canards are considered[..]ridiculous...people who produce art that can be used to fan the flames of prejudice have a responsibility to speak out against that prejudice.

They don't bear responsibility for the way other people use their art, but they *do* bear responsibility for how they react to that prejudice when confronted with it.

But if that art clearly speaks against the prejudice, what more can be done except repeat it over and over again, and demonstrate it? The movie isn't interpretive, it's bold and it states strongly. I do not, to my very heart, understand how anyone can leave that movie hating 'Jews, because they killed Jesus'. It's just not possible, unless they choose what to hear and not hear, and they choose to twist the movie to support their agenda.

Quote:
Quote:
The movie is based on the claim that the Bible is accurate history.

Which is precisely why it had a responsibility to either make sure its portrayals were as accurate as possible (for example, sticking to the gospels, rather than incorporating the hallucinations of an antisemitic nun and presenting said hallucinations as actual historical events), or stop presenting itself as historical fact.

If there is a historical fact incorrect in the movie, which alter a truth from the Bible, then the movie has a major unbiblical inaccuracy, in that it alters the point that it's trying to express.

Quote:
some things *are* a matter of verifiable fact -- like, say, the word for "messiah" in Aramaic. And he gets them wrong.

That doesn't alter the message the movie is proclaiming. A small fraction of viewers will notice grammatical inconsistencies with the language. I'm not saying Gibson's not at fault here, but that error isn't an error which supports any claim about the movie being false or in support of any negative viewpoints... however, I would be interested to know of more inaccuracies in the movie... I've never been a 100% total Passion fanatic, I'm just defending its message. I was always very very skeptical of Gibson since the movie was announced, because it seems like a polar opposite of his character, even knowing he had a Catholic background. So I always approached the movie with caution, especially when it came to a lot of the things that happened on set. So I would love to hear of any inaccuracies in the movie.

But, I've kept my doubts about its creation and those involved, separate from the message of the movie, and how it applies to what I know about Christianty and the Gospels.

Quote:
There's a difference between material that plays with stereotypes that have been used in the past to justify torturing and killing people, and your average parody, law or anything else.

People who are producing material that plays on inflammatory material like that have a responsibility to be careful with what they do.

Honestly, I don't see how you can still see the movie as either being anti-semitic, or supporting anti-semitism when it blatantly, clearly states that we are all equal in this event, and that Jesus himself gave up his own life. You're saying the movie in essence shouldn't have been made. So what should be made to defend against anti-semitism if a clear statement against it is not enough?

Quote:
So it's frustrating when Christians wave off Jewish concerns with a shrug -- "ah, you're just misinterpreting it!" Maybe people have misinterpreted the movie. But I don't think the same can be said about the reaction the movie caused and its effect on interfaith relations. And that's what I care about.

Ok. I can understand that... funny how you pretty much some up everything I've been saying Smile. It is quite unfortunate that in this world, anything that touches on a controversial subject will have a strong chance of erupting into an all out war. It's happened before, and as you say, it happened with this movie. But in the same way, if we don't touch on these controversial issues and try to remedy the angst, end the hatred, then for certainty, there will always be hatred and anger. It's like ripping off the band-aid per se. If we just sit back and let people war over disagreements, in the end it will never end (heh, gotta love english), more people will die, more people will hate, and the issue of inequality will continue to fester in people's hearts. If the only way to work towards peace is to face the issues and possibly cause more pain in the short run, which is the lesser of two evils? *shrug*

Quote:
But please remember that your reaction is not the only valid one, and that there's history here that remains relevant to today, so please attempt to have some empathy for those for whom this movie represents an unwelcome intrusion of unpleasant history.

I do, honestly. I wish that stupid people would give up their hating causes, and listen to what they're saying. But it hurts more to sit back and not do anything, knowing that hatred will continue... I dunno. I honestly don't know what to say any more. The movie attempts to prolaim the biblical truth in a way which clearly contradicts what hate groups state, using their own sources which they've twisted (the Bible).

If this movie can't present the truth and clearly make the statement, then what can?

Quote:
Because, ultimately, shouldn't love lead to greater empathy and understanding, even when it doesn't lead to agreement?

Yes, very much so. And it goes further. As a child, we were punished for things we did, not understanding why, or the purpose, or why our parent(s) would hurt us like they did. But our parent(s) knew, they knew why we had to hurt in order to learn, and our hurt was their hurt. Punishment didn't bring pleasure, it brought pain to everyone, but comfort in the mind of parent, knowing that hopefully, we would learn and ultimately be safer and come to understand their actions and their purpose.
Love isn't just about 'to each his own', loving and understanding, if that love and understanding would encourage or lead to danger. What I mean, is if I truly loved someone, and they turned to me and said 'if you love me, you'll let me cross this bridge', yet I knew that it was on the verge of collapsing, what would I say? 'Ok, cross' if it proved to them I loved them, yet they died? Or deny their own definition of my love, if it meant they would live, and in the end understand why I said no?

So yes, 'love should lead to greater empathy and understanding, even when it doesn't lead to agreement', but if the disagreement leads to what will ultimately be something negative, we should do our best to warn them of the danger, and they then can choose - choose whether or not to believe us, and choose whether or not to believe we still truly love them. But I won't sit back and say 'ok' if I have a chance to help and make a difference.

If everyone sits back in this world and lets everyone make their own decisions, it'll end up in chaos (it already is). But if everyone stands up and forces their own way on everyone, it'll also end up in chaos. So where's the middle ground? That's what humanity has been struggling with for the last 6000 years...

Anyway, yeah, did this become the record now? Smile Honestly, I will take this discussion to PM or someone's blog after this post Smile I've got to stop rambling like this, hehe
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:31 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ariock
Has a Posse


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

 		....
ok, now you are just showboating. Wink
_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:07 pm
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Argh! Which wasn't a *crime,* by the way, it was a Roman-sanctioned *execution*! By, you know, the Romans! It's understandable why a Roman Catholic would want to play down that aspect, but still...!


It has never been played down, at least to me, the Catholic school educated person since Kindergarten. It has always been taught that the Jewish Sanhedrin condemned Jesus of heresy against the Church and they wanted to execute him, but under Roman Law, they were not allowed to inflict a punishment of such severity. So they sent him to Pontius Pilate. Pilate found no reason for the Roman government to persecute Jesus for a religious crime, but the the crowd persisted. Note that all that Jesus had to do was deny these accusations and Pilate in all likelihood would have released him.

Anyways, like The_Bruce said, the Romans along with the Jews had chances to stop the mayhem, but they didn't. Pilate could have refused to condemn him, but he didn't.

And no I don't understand why Roman Catholics would want to downplay the Roman involvement in the execution of Jesus. We're called Roman Catholics cause we're based in Rome. Our roots are not with the Romans, they are with the Jews. Christians were persecuted legally by the Romans until 313, with the Edict of Milan. There is no reason for us to sympathize with them.


Quote:
I beg to differ. I don't care about surfing one whit, yet I liked "Riding Giants" a lot, and it is entirely about is surfing.


Well, perhaps the movie made you interested in surfing, or presented it in a way that interested you, or maybe you just like beautifully filmed documentaries?


Quote:
Yet, in a way, I deal with persecution of my own. How often do we read about something that happens involved a 'Christian' by name, and suddenly the entire secular world pounces on it and blames Christianity, blames God, blames church, everything that I hold dear? As a Christian, my name is dirtied as well... it hurts finding a light hearted discussion which has somehow randomly turned into a Christian-hate fest, especially when there aren't any Christians there to make any kind of defense. Christians are hated as well. Not in the same way, or likely nearly as fanatical as anti-semitism, but it's there, so I hear you.


This is true. Anti-Semitism is there, and many people point it as evident in such events as the Holocaust which was a terrible event that should never happen again. But to quote Hitler, "Who now remembers the Armenians?"
Anti-Christian sentiment is out there as well. Many people rush to defend the Jews at the expense of Christians. Many people rush to defend the Christians at the expense of the Jews. Why is not possible to defend the Christians and the Jews at the expense of no one? Why is when one defends the Christian faith, they are criticizing the Jews? And vice versa? Remember, the Jews and Christians share common origins. Jesus was a Jew. His followers were Jews. Judaism is an incredibly important part of the history of the Christian faith. Is it the fault of the faith. Any Christian who doesn't recognize this and appreciates his Jewish religious heritage is mistaken. When a Christian makes fun of a Jew, he is making fun of himself, in short, because that's where his religion came from.


Ok, I'm going to stop here, cause I could keep rambling forever and still make no sense.
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:39 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
urthstripe wrote:
Quote:
Argh! Which wasn't a *crime,* by the way, it was a Roman-sanctioned *execution*! By, you know, the Romans! It's understandable why a Roman Catholic would want to play down that aspect, but still...!


It has never been played down, at least to me, the Catholic school educated person since Kindergarten. It has always been taught that the Jewish Sanhedrin condemned Jesus of heresy against the Church and they wanted to execute him


For what?

Urthstripe, do us both a favor. Go look it up. Go find a nice compendium of Jewish law and go look up what in Judaism constitutes a crime subject to capital punishment.

Also, while you're at it, you might want to check the gospels and see what the crime for which Jesus was executed was. Got a clue for you...they put it on a little placard on the cross.

Claiming to be the Son of G-d is not a crime, let alone a capital crime. Every man is a son of G-d. Even claiming you're the only one doesn't meet the criteria for a capital crime. It doesn't even meet the criteria for a crime. By the way, under Jewish law, claiming to be the king isn't a crime either.

It is, however, a crime to claim to be the King of Judea when Judea is under Roman occupation. But it's the Romans that don't like that, not the Jews. The Jews were looking for a king, remember? Roman rule was No Fun.

I'm pretty darn familiar with the gospels. And I can't recall a single instance of Jesus saying anything more controversial than the son of G-d thing.

Incidentally, Jesus was living about the time the Talmud was being compiled. The Rabbis said things that were far more nontraditional and inflammatory than anything Jesus said. The gospels say that Jesus was educated by the Pharisees, the forerunners of Rabbinic Judaism, so it's likely that this was his millieu.

And you know what the Jewish authorities did?

They recorded them for posterity, so that the minority opinions were not lost. Then they debated them. The winning opinions in the debate became Jewish law. Kind of like the Supreme Court.

They *didn't* execute the dissenters. Quite to the contrary, people still use the dissenters' opinions. They're still taught in yeshivas (sort of like Jewish seminaries).

As far as capital punishment, take a look at the procedural rules while you're at it.

Two kosher (acceptable) witnesses are required to convict.

A conviction can only be made by a court of 23-71 judges. They have to be scholars. They have to have children, since someone who doesn't have children, or someone who is very old and has forgotten what it is like, might lack compassion for the person standing before them, someone else's child, and be unduly harsh. The judges have to be scholars, well-versed in the law. The judges have to be people who are "loved by the people" for their humility and goodness.

In front of the court, there must be three rows of scholars. Their job is to scrutinize the court proceedings and alert the court to any error which might result in an unfair conviction.

BUT they're not allowed to intervene if the error helps the defendent.

Circumstantial evidence is inadmissable. Confessions are inadmissable (you know that whole Fifth Amendment thing, the right to not incriminate yourself? Shh...don't tell the Founders, but other people thought of it first. In fact, Jewish law takes it a step further -- not only does it not want to you unintentionally incriminate yourself, it won't let you even if you want to).

There must be at least two witnesses. They must be rigorously interrogated to make sure they have no material interest in the case.

Finally, the defendent must have been warned, before he committed the crime, that the crime he was about to commit was punishable by death, and he must have acknowledged his understanding of the warning.

Wait, wait! There's more!

A majority of one judge is required to acquit, but two are required to convict. If the court votes to convict, they must wait a day, break off into pairs, and debate. Only a judge who voted to acquit is allowed to change his vote.

Wait! Still more!

If the court votes unanimously to convict, the conviction is thrown out, since the defendent had no one defending him!

Seeing a pattern here? We don't like to execute people. We really, really, really don't like to execute people. So Jewish law makes it more or less impossible to execute people.

So, sittin' here, I gots to wonder how that crowd got so danged bloodthirsty. Unless they really, really liked the Romans. Hmm. Who liked the Romans?

Quote:
but under Roman Law, they were not allowed to inflict a punishment of such severity.


Um, nor, I think, did they want to.

Look, there were Jews who probably wanted Jesus dead: the Sadducees. You know why they probably wanted him dead? They were Roman lackeys. They were the Temple administration. The Romans owned them.

You know what the Romans did to people who tried to seize kingship in the countries they occupied?

That's right! They executed them!

And what was Jesus' crime, as blazoned on his crucifix?

Go check your gospels: "King of the Jews."

May I reiterate that Jews don't kill people for claiming to be kings?

Romans, on the other hand, did it all the time.

Quote:
So they sent him to Pontius Pilate. Pilate found no reason for the Roman government to persecute Jesus for a religious crime, but the the crowd persisted. Note that all that Jesus had to do was deny these accusations and Pilate in all likelihood would have released him.


But it wasn't a religious crime! It was a political one. You know, that whole "king" thing? Remember?

Okay, don't even bother with a Jewish source for this one. Go look at a nice, neutral history book. There are plenty of independent Roman records about Pilate.

Let me tell you about Pilate, while you're looking it up. Pilate was so sadistic that he appalled even his fellow Romans, who, I'll remind you, got their jollies by watching gladiators and wild animals rip each other to shreds. Pilate was so brutal and vicious that eventually his superiors called him back to Rome, because they feared that revolt and chaos were inevitable under such a ruler.

A guy claiming to be the messiah, that is, the annointed king of the Jews, was a big problem for the Romans, not the Jews. Look at the Romans' behavior in other occupied lands, hmm? They executed people who looked like they might lead revolts. They did that all over the Roman empire. So why wouldn't they have done the same in Judea? Oh wait, they did.

The Sadducees, the aristocracy, not wanting to lose their cushy positions with their conquerors, probably would have supported the idea of getting rid of Jesus. The New Testament frequently seems to mix up Sadducees and Pharisees, acting as if they were interchangeable. But these were two bitterly opposed groups.

The average Jew on the street, however, hated the Romans, just like the Pharisees hated the Romans. The Romans were oppressors. Pilate crucified thousands of Jews during his rule. He was a tyrant. So why would the crowd want Jesus dead? He'd committed no crime under Jewish law, and he was claiming to be the king everyone was waiting for.

Quote:
And no I don't understand why Roman Catholics would want to downplay the Roman involvement in the execution of Jesus. We're called Roman Catholics cause we're based in Rome. Our roots are not with the Romans, they are with the Jews. Christians were persecuted legally by the Romans until 313, with the Edict of Milan. There is no reason for us to sympathize with them.


Yes, but the early church was expanding to Gentiles. Christians were spreading the word across the Roman Empire. At the same time, they were trying to establish that Christianity was not just some kooky sect of Jews. So on one hand, they wouldn't want to offend potential Roman converts, and on the other hand, they had to dissociate themselves somewhat from the mass of the Jewish people. Hence, the role of the "Jewish mob" which was likely a bunch of the aristocracy, who were Roman collaborators, gets emphasized and the role of the Romans gets downplayed. Also, when the Romans don't like you anyway, you definitely want to avoid spreading literature that portrays them as villainous. So, again, the role of the Romans (and their collaborators in the aristocracy) gets downplayed while a random Jewish mob appears to instigate Jesus' execution.

Of course, I don't believe that the NT is the literal verbatim word of G-d, so the possibility of e...d...i...t...o...r...s, or even confusion on the part of the people writing it down about who said what with all those Pharisees and Sadducees (hey! I feel for them. Israeli politics give me a headache, and I'm sure they were just as bad in 1st-century Judea) appears obvious to me.

I don't have any advice for you, as far as reconciling it with documented historical fact about the political situation in Roman-occupied Judea, if you believe that it's the verbatim word of G-d. All I know is that it seems to sort of...step around...some issues. Which is probably fine, as those issues were irrelevant to the large majority of people who eventually became Christian, who were Gentiles, but did have some unfortunate effects for those Judeans' descendents.
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:35 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
DreamOfTheRood
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 714
Location: Indiana

 		Alright, so I'm looking through the Gospel of John, and every instance I see where members of the Jewish spiritual/political hierarchy are gunning after Jesus, it's always the Pharisees.
For instance, John 18:3 says, "Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches and weapons."

Here we go: this spells it all out rather concisely. John 11:45-53:

"Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alon like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation."
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.

It appears from this statement that it was the Pharisees who were more concerned with the political nature of their nation.
_________________
Twitter: DreamoftheRood


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:04 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

 		Ouch, I think I just got hosed.

*Urthstripe calls for backup

No, I've never actually studied Jewish law, and thanks for the info, I'm always up some new learning.

I only have one thing to say about how you question why the Jews would condemn the king they have been waiting for.

I've always been taught that the Jews were waiting for a militaristic king that would lead them in war against their opressors and to victory. I wouldn't blame them considering their current poor state. Certainly, when Jesus came about with his peaceful ideals, some Jews, and most certainly the Zealots, were not ready for his message, and rather have someone who would come and lead them to beat on the Romans.

Yes, and I understand the political reasons why the Romans would execute Jesus, I just didn't explain that part in my post.

And I've never believe the Bible to be literally true or God's verbatim. The writers of the Gospels wrote it decades after it happened so of course there would be discrepancies because of the changes in oral tradition and the political climate of the times, of course. But what can't be denied, by Christians at least, is the spirtual truth it holds for us.

Certainly, if I get some time, I'll look into some more stuff about Jewish theology and culture of the time, and some early Christian theology. I would ask my sister but she's into Medieval Christian theology. I might even take some theology classes in college, this discussion has piqued my interest, to say the least. I certainly don't give these so-called "theology" classes at my high school any credit, they don't teach anything new or in depth because everyone has to take them, so they are a little, uh, dumbed down.
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:08 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
DreamOfTheRood wrote:
Alright, so I'm looking through the Gospel of John, and every instance I see where members of the Jewish spiritual/political hierarchy are gunning after Jesus, it's always the Pharisees.
For instance, John 18:3 says, "Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches and weapons."

Here we go: this spells it all out rather concisely. John 11:45-53:

"Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alon like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation."
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.

It appears from this statement that it was the Pharisees who were more concerned with the political nature of their nation.


Well, so say the gospels. Our own records present a very different political picture. Yes, the Pharisees were very concerned with politics -- as in, getting rid of the Romans. As far as whose records are right, <shrug> that's a matter of faith, I guess.

Oh, and as far as Caiaphas...Pharisees were not priests. The High Priest was a Sadducee, a member of the aristocratic, inherited priesthood. So, again, I see two possibilities: either the people who were editing/transcribing/whatever the gospels got mixed up, or they didn't want to make the distinction between the groups clear.

Look, being a priest is a hereditary thing: the Hebrew term for it is kohen. You know how there are a lot of Jews with the last name Cohen? Well, guess what...

Being a Pharisee was, essentially, like being a rabbi -- you got there by studying. Pharisees and Sadducees didn't get along. People didn't belong to both groups.

Okay, probably we should stop.

I'll admit -- I was feeling very angsty from a completely unrelated argument with a Christian who decided that our holiday get-together was a good time to get me saved, and who, incidentally, suggested that I should come see The Passion with him, so I came back to the forum, renoticed thebruce's comment about The Passion and antisemitism, and decided to relieve some of the stress I couldn't express verbally in writing, which was a decision made in a moment of annoyance.

(Had some Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons kindly showed up at my door, I probably would have taken it out on them instead... Embarassed but I came here, saw the comment on The Passion and thought ARGGHHH!.)

Probably this discussion has gone too far. As long as you're not beating up Jews for being Christ-killers, (which I'm know you're not) and as long as you're not trying to proselytize to me, it's really none of my business what you believe. Smile
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:55 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
urthstripe wrote:
Ouch, I think I just got hosed.


Oh dear. The only slang usage of "hosed" with which I am familiar is the one that is equivalent to "pulling my leg," i.e. a mild term for lying. (However, that can't be what you mean, can it? That would be mean. Sad Nah. You're not mean. So what does it mean?)

Quote:
*Urthstripe calls for backup


Oh joy. If you don't mind, I'll be leaving now. (Got to stop getting myself into these situations. Note to self: no more provoking the Unfiction Christians...)

Quote:
No, I've never actually studied Jewish law, and thanks for the info, I'm always up some new learning.

I only have one thing to say about how you question why the Jews would condemn the king they have been waiting for.

I've always been taught that the Jews were waiting for a militaristic king that would lead them in war against their opressors and to victory. I wouldn't blame them considering their current poor state. Certainly, when Jesus came about with his peaceful ideals, some Jews, and most certainly the Zealots, were not ready for his message, and rather have someone who would come and lead them to beat on the Romans.


Okay, as messianic prophecies are understood in Judaism: the Jewish messiah is going to do three major things: rebuild the Temple, gather the exiles back to Israel, and institute world peace.

Suffering under Roman rule, many Jews may have longed for a militaristic leader who would do all that, and hand the Romans their *sses. But that's not a requirement. "Messiahs" were cropping up all over the place in this time period. The Jewish people weren't executing them.

And even if Jesus had done something that, under Jewish law, warranted a death sentence, the account of his trial in the gospels flies in the face of accepted Jewish legal practices.

Perhaps a small faction of Jews who didn't like him assembled a makeshift sanhedrin (one of those courts I described above) to try him, but it wasn't the Sanhedrin (known in Jewish law as the Great Sanhedrin...the equivalent of the Supreme Cout).

The Sanhedrin didn't meet at night, in the dark, in secret, to condemn people to death. That would be like the Supreme Court doing that. Can you imagine the outcry, here, in the U.S., if our Supreme Court ever met in the middle of the night, secretly, to uphold a death sentence? What makes you think the first-century Judeans were any less critical? Hello, most of the Bible is Israelites criticizing other Israelites, all the way back to Moses (remember the Israelites in the desert? Remember how they kvetched and challenged practically everything Moses did and probably gave the poor guy migraines?).

And if the Sanhedrin were going to break that many rules, they'd already forfeited any legal legitimacy their proceedings would have (and also their qualifications to even be on the Sanhedrin) so why even bother with a formal trial?

Let me lay this out more clearly:

The Palestinian Jews of the first century CE were divided into three sects, or "philosophies" as Josephus calls them. These were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The New Testament frequently mentions the Pharisees and the Sadducees. (For some reason no one has ever explained, the Essenes are never mentioned in the New Testament.)

Before they were religious sects they were something like political parties (but again, remember that in Judaism, it's pretty much impossible to distinguish between political and religious factions). The Sadducees were the supporters of the Hasmonean monarchy. The Pharisees were the opponents of the Hasmoneans, but those who operated "within the system." The Essenes were the "dropouts": the people who became convinced that politics was hopelessly corrupt, and went off to live as monks in their monasteries--including one famous monastery by the shores of the Dead Sea--and wait for the end of the world.

When the Romans added Palestine to their empire, in 63 BCE, pro-Hasmonean and anti-Hasmonean politics became irrelevant. Yet the Pharisees and the Sadducees lived on, albeit with their agendas transformed. The Sadducees became the priestly, aristocratic movement within Palestinian Jewry, associated with the Temple and its leadership. The Pharisees became the popular, grass-roots leaders, preachers and teachers in the local synagogues. The Essenes stayed in their monasteries, still waiting for the end of the world.

So, throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus's main Jewish opponents are the Pharisees, whom he encounters in the Galilean synagogues. But, when he and his disciples go up to Jerusalem, the Pharisees vanish from the story. Instead we read about a new set of opponents: the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. The most obvious explanation is that the Pharisees had little or no clout in the ruling circles in Jerusalem. They don't take any actions against Jesus in Jerusalem, because there weren't any actions they could have taken.)

But let's clarify what we mean by "opponents." The Pharisees debated eachother all the time. The Pharisees produced the Talmudic Rabbis -- not all Pharisees are among the group of sages whose deliberations are recorded in the Talmud, but it appears that all the Rabbis were Pharisees.

(In the Talmud, the term "Pharisee" has different connotations depending on how it was used -- sometimes it's used negatively and is referring to opponents of the Rabbis, sometimes it's used when other people are referring to the Rabbis.)

But as far as the Pharisees, again, the bloodthirsty portrayal that sometimes appears in the NT doesn't jive with what I know (and Jesus has plenty of encounters with Pharisees described in the NT where they debate or even just ask him questions, he ends with a zinger, and they go away to think about it, just like they would have with any other sage): the Talmudic rabbis are people who say things like, "Even when the gates of heaven are barred to prayer, they are open to tears," and "If you must hit a child, use a string." They're people who tried to apply the sometimes harsh biblical law in humane ways.

The point of all this being: I maintain that early Christianity needed to distinguish itself from Judaism, both from the Temple administration, and from the grassroots, popular authority of the Pharisees. So in early Christian writings, the difference between the two groups is passed over (they all just become "the elders" or the Jews) and they all become indistiguishable opponents of Jesus, ignoring differences in their level and type of opposition (i.e. disagreeing and debating vs. trying to have him killed).

None of this should be taken as an attempt to impeach any spiritual truth that the gospels might hold for you; I'm just saying, please consider that the gospels are documents with a specific purpose, and therefore might not give the most encompassing or detailed view of the political situation at the time (especially since Jesus sort of implied that his followers should sever religion from politics ("give to Caesar that which is Caesar's" and his refusal to be a political king and take on the Romans)).

Quote:
Certainly, if I get some time, I'll look into some more stuff about Jewish theology and culture of the time, and some early Christian theology. I would ask my sister but she's into Medieval Christian theology. I might even take some theology classes in college, this discussion has piqued my interest, to say the least. I certainly don't give these so-called "theology" classes at my high school any credit, they don't teach anything new or in depth because everyone has to take them, so they are a little, uh, dumbed down.


May I suggest, in addition to the theology classes, history classes?
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:18 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
RandMod6
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 85
Location: 46.875805 -096.784945

 		translation subroutine now online
Phaedra wrote:
urthstripe wrote:
Ouch, I think I just got hosed.


Oh dear. The only slang usage of "hosed" with which I am familiar is the one that is equivalent to "pulling my leg," i.e. a mild term for lying. (However, that can't be what you mean, can it? That would be mean. :( Nah. You're not mean. So what does it mean?)


Never thought I'd see the day where I'd be translating something for you Phaedra; when I get to assist a team mate I do this :)

'English' def: courtesy of urban dictionary
1. hosed
-utterly and undoubtedly affixiated in a troublesome situation
-reflecting on a situation in a negative manner

syn: Jacked, screwed
"we got hosed Tommy, we got hosed"

Or, if you prefer:
10W 1337 : pwned
K0MM3N 1337: 0WN3D, 0WNX0R3D
31D3R 1337 : 0\/\/|\|3|>

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:42 pm
Last edited by RandMod6 on Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

 		To me it's a synonym of owned. I just got owned.

You ever see Davy and Goliath? That's where I've heard it.

Quote:
May I suggest, in addition to the theology classes, history classes?


Oh, definitely history, that is my favorite subject. The point I was making is I've never really been interested in theology, because of the boring manner in which my school presents it. But when I'm finally able to put some knowledge to use, it gets more intereting for me. That is all.

So, how about them Steelers!!!
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:47 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Astald
Unfettered

Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
Location: Just outside of Pittsburgh (Go Steelers!)

 		Ahh, something we can all agree on. Go Steelers!!!

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:26 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Astald wrote:
Ahh, something we can all agree on. Go Steelers!!!

What are you doing? Stop that! I'm enjoying all this not-agreeing. So, uh...

The Steelers are, in fact, not the best team.

Raspberry
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:32 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

 		You lie! Explain yourself!
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:36 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group