Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Not trying to convince you, Boris

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The difference is that individual guilt is real, collective guilt is not. Collective guilt is bull****, and no rational person could say such a thing exists.

So then nobody is guilty if they stood by and did nothing while innocent people were dragged away to concentration camps? True, they can't be accused of a specific crime, but guilt is another matter entirely.

That would still be individual guilt, silly. If an individual had the power to stop something bad from happening, and didn't, then he would indeed have something of which to be guilty. But there were those who were powerless (children, the poor, the disenfranchised, among others), and those who resisted as best they could, those who fled to other countries as refugees, etc. These people are not guilty, and ergo you cannot lay collective guilt on the German people for the Holocaust, but rather hold the individuals who perpetrated/allowed it accountable.

Source?

There's a big difference between speculation and fabrication...yadda yadda yadda snip snip snip both as a glimpse into the Essenes and into Judaism before the Diaspora.

Didn't think so.

[Straybow]

So, your insistance that there should be "SOME mention of it in contemporary documents" is valid speculation, but anything else isn't? Where's your documentation that historians tracked sects of minority religions in the Roman Empire? What, you don't have any?

Didn't think so.

No point trying to convince you. Your sour grapes against Christianity clouds your mind.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, I think you over-generalize. Religion didn't change suddenly 300 years ago.

Greeks under Alexander adopted Zoroastrianism from Persia, which persisted throughout the Greco-Roman world until Constantine. Isis worship imported from Egypt was quite the rage in Rome.

In general, metropolitan populations were diverse. Rural populations were more highly restricted to local culture/religion.

Prophets routinely warned and damned the Hebrews of old for worshipping the Molechs, Daggons, Asheras, etc of the other regional tribes. Only post-exile Jews were staunchly YHWH-ists as a population.

I know that large parts of the population worshipped all sorts of other gods (i study bible and have a final exam this year) but still, Hebrews were expected follow Judaism, which is why prophets began their work. Judaism was a huge part of Hebrew culture.

During the disapora however, the link between Judaism and Hebrew culture grew - since the Jews were distanced from their lands and holy sites, and had no national state. So many hebrews kept Judaism and were very staunchy about it too.

Each people with hebrew links, which Israel found and helped make aliyah - have some sort of Judaism like religion. Most of it is based on early Torah books, since most of the people are remains of the Israelis who were bannished much before the bible came to it's final shape.

What I'm saying is that there's the link between Jewish race and Judaism is a relic of ancient world type of religion following, where each nation would have it's god, and when they fought, each 'summoned their god' to help - and that tie is much stronger in Jews due to diaspora.

Therefore you can't dismiss Judaism as merely a religion. It's also a religion. But I don't relate to orthodox Judaism. I see Judaism as my culture, tradition and nationality.

And no one can come and declare it's wrong.

Dearest Sirotnikov,

On this issue you are completely right. My apologies, it was indeed written by Ziff and not by Frommer.
Perhaps we should both read it!

I will try to find it in the library.

If you can find a freeware version on the net - I'd be grateful.

As for my original point - I remembered now what book I was talking about. I still don't remember it's name, but it had to do with comapring Zionism (or at least Revisionism) to Fascism. I found it's copy on an Islamic site, featured together with the protocols of Zion.

As far as Frommer goes - isn't it an actor? I googled the name and found no author of that name.

Thank you for your most kind words! I hope you enjoy ridiculing my academic training.
Actually I don't care, because I know that the details I have given about my life and career are true. I do not expect you to believe me.

But since in your view I am completely inept, I suggest that you search for historical research to support your own view. I have in the previous year quoted quite extensively from about a dozen different sources, most of which were dismissed by you as propaganda. So it would be a waste of time to proceed on that same route.

Please decide what encyclopaedias to consult, which bibliographies, which historical reviews!
Perhaps you can teach me how to start a historical investigation?
It is nice to notice that you have finally given some titles of books you consider to be reliable. Thank you!

I don't have time to actually begin a scholarship level argument with you.

If that is what you wish - I again state - I don't have the energy or time.

As for my thoughts on your sources:

I am also familiar to some extent with methods of research, analyzing texts and journalism. I've studied it both in school, and myself from books on the subject.

I think that categorically deciding a source is either 100% trust worthy or 100% not trustworthy is wrong. Given that most of written history is infact somewhere around 50% trustworthy or less - I think your way would make us disabled in our quests.

You still haven't answered any of my points that actually required answering.

I told you again - when I talked to you about info that I possess from for primary sources (Israeli Statistics Agency / Israeli Law Books etc) you evaded them by demanding me to give you a book written by a historian, proving that they primary sources are not invented by me.

I think it's rather silly - as the premesis for any discussion has to assume that even if the information we give might be incorrect - our intentions are at the very least honest.

Also - when we talked about the marriage of mixed couples - you asked me to provide you with a law stating that such a possibility exists. Israel is a demcratic country - all laws on civilian actions are by definition only limiting laws - thus everything not covered by a law is allowed. According to this attitude - if there is no law prohibiting inter-racial/religious marraiges, then there's no reason not to have such marraiges.

What is a problem, is that the only institution in Israel which exists to perform marraiges is orthodox and it's stance is that every marraige between a jew and a non-jew would not be orthodox - thus they can't perform the ceremony. However if the couple is married by a christian / muslim institution, or is performed in other countries, Israel acknowledges it as an existing marriage.

This problem does not arise from the zionistic or even jewish nature of the country, but rather the grip of power the orthodox institution has on Israel - something that is considered bad by all non-orthodox jews.

I for instance, voted for a zionist liberal centrist party called Shinui. One of it's principles is to act to further seperate between religious institutes and state, and especially to counter-balance the otrhodox parties.

Infact, there is now talk about creating a civilian institution that can marry couples whom the orthodox institution can not marry.

I have tried to describe how I generally proceed in quite some detail; I am eager to hear about your methods.

1. Investigate the source:
Who wrote it? What was his goal? What is his premesis? Who was it written for?
Then I decide how trustworthy is it:

a. very
b. somewhat
c. not so much
d. not at all

2. Read the paper
a. check for biases in the author's way of presentation
b. search for logical faults in his arguements
c. search for clashes with things I know and am reasonably sure about.

3. Re-evaluate the text:

a. both non-biased and correct
b. non-biased and inaccurate
c. somewhat biased but correct on the facts
d. biased and inaccurate
e. very biased and inaccurate
f. very biased and false.

For each type of text I decide how to take on it.

If it's inaccurate I would cross it's facts with other sources.

If it's slightly biased, I would try to "fix" the bias when making conclusions.

If it's accurate but biased, I would trust it on the facts , but less on the analysis

(example: Israel began the 1967 war to expand it's territories as a prime goal
siro's approach: Israel did began the attack in 1967 war - fact. True. it began the agression - analysis. I disagree. Among it's goals was expansion - analysis. I agree. It was a primary goal - I disagree.

Disagreements and agreements are based on what I read and know until this point, and I will not expand on it).

A small other question: What on earth is that Washington Report you are speaking about? I have not the slightest idea honestly.

I appologize. I mistakenly took your reference to the middle east journal, from washington, as a reference to "washington report" - a resource that Cyber Gnu quoted a few times, and in my opinion is very biased against Israel, though it's relatively correct on the factual part.

You and gnu seem to post at the same time and at the same threads, (hmmm.... ) and I apparently mistakenly attributed this source to you.

I appologize again.

The middle east journal is interesting. It's somewhat lacking on an Israeli point of view. searches havn't yelded much pro-israeli sourcse in thier library, and a casual browse found little pro-israeli reports (or israeli reports in general). Also, the prominent editors list had much more arabs than jews. I'm assuming now that arabs are more likely to take the arabist anti-western-colonializm stance, and jews are more likely to take the clash-of-civilizations stance.


I would judge this source would be almost always correct on facts, but may sometimes be biased in analysis, in favor of palestinians, due to their p.o.v. having apparently larger representation among the staff.



I would seriously suggest you read:

Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians'

I only read excerpts, but I trust this to be an important book in setting a premisis for discussion.

It basically compares quotes and excerpts used in books of Israeli pro-palestinian 'new historians' and shows that they often omitted words, ignored documents, and even misworded and distorted quotations to prove their point. For that reason, he says, their research is untrustable.

And could you please give your opinion about these studies:

M.J. Proudfoot, European refugees, 1939-1952 (1957)
R. Hilberg, The destruction of the European Jews (1961, 1967)
H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (1963)
E. Davidson, The Trial of the Germans: Nuremberg, 1945-1946 (1966)
K.A. Schleunes, The twisted road to Auschwitz (1970)
J.M. Ciechanowski, The Warsaw rising of 1944 (1971, trans. 1974)
L.S. Dawidowicz, The war against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1976)

Which are reliable, which are not? Which are propaganda, anti-Semitic etc.

Given I probably can't gain access to most of them - I would have to ask to use more accessible sources.

Also - since unlike you I do not have records of possible quotations at home - I will often not be able to base my opinion, since I can't always remember where I read what, or quote it when I'm making the post.

For instance, I've read several articles and some excerpts about the nature of "Jewish Labor" in zionist thought in the 1900-1948 area. One of your articles I read erlier (when we had a previous encounter) blamed the Jews of trying to push arab working hands our of the market, and suggested they were doing that on purpose to oust the arabs and "rob them".

Based on what I read, I think it heavily ignores the jewish point of view - Jews were mostly white collar workers or traders or capitalists. Much of the thought in Zionism talked about the holy land's earth and soil - and how the jews should change their social structure or else they won't be able to be a nation.

I think that much less driving arabs out, the zionists were trying to drive jews in. According to their line of thought, if jews didn't work their own land - they can't possibly claim it. buying the land, and then keeping arab workers to work it, seemed very "imperialist" and wrong to them. If you want to get rights to that land to call it yours - work it yourself.

I can't for the life of me now bring you any specific souce for it. But many of the extracts I read from speeches, articles and books written at that time - spoke of this point.

Infact I think Herzel and even Pinsker talked about this priority - creating a large jewish working class.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Straybow
So, your insistance that there should be "SOME mention of it in contemporary documents" is valid speculation, but anything else isn't? Where's your documentation that historians tracked sects of minority religions in the Roman Empire? What, you don't have any?

Didn't think so.

No point trying to convince you. Your sour grapes against Christianity clouds your mind.

Typical cry of the fanatic--any critique of the historical accuracy fo your relgious dogma is instantly a product of "sour grapes." People must have an agenda to look at things objectively, yes.

Forget even Roman documents...how about Jewish? You said a THIRD of Jews in all of Judea converted to Christianity after the crucifixion. This is a monumental event, if true. There would be SOME historical record of it. You expect me to believe millions of prostletyzing Christians kept quiet about the new faith to which they are converted with passion?

The burden of proof is on you--you made the statement, you need to back it up.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
As for my thoughts on your sources:

I am also familiar to some extent with methods of research, analyzing texts and journalism. I've studied it both in school, and myself from books on the subject.

I think that categorically deciding a source is either 100% trust worthy or 100% not trustworthy is wrong. Given that most of written history is infact somewhere around 50% trustworthy or less - I think your way would make us disabled in our quests.

Dearest Sirotnikov,

It appears that at least some of our friction is caused by a completely different training.
Though you are free to disbelieve that I followed any academical historical education, I will continue to 'pretend' I did.
I would like to point out that in general journalists are the very opposite of historians. Most journalists write on a daily or weekly/monthly base. They usually write about an event that happened most recently, while having access to less than 20% of the relevant facts, without being able to situate this event into some larger perspective.
As a result most journalists are generally considered with contempt, or at least reserve.

So I was extremely surprised to note that you accepted in the other thread about Iraq/Vietnam c.q. support of Saddam Hussein by the CIA in 1963 the authority of the New York Times.
The opinion of a historian would hardly be influenced, since this article was written 40 years after the event, nor gives it any source references, nor is there any reason to have any faith at all in Roger Morris, about whom no information is available. Probably the only argument in its favour is that the New York Times seems to be a 'respectable' newspaper.
Since this is a link to information on the Internet, I would be double suspicious: how do we know whether this article has actually appeared in print? How do we know, when it was printed, if it was?

When assessing this information my first questions would be:

Who is Roger Morris? Why is he not able to give source references?
What is the reputation of the New York Times in respect of US involvement in the Middle East?

Since it would probably take far too much time to answer these questions I would try to obtain information in another way: the way I have previously described, which you decided to ridicule.

Then about the book by Ziff.
No, I do not have a link on the internet of it. I wouldn't trust it!
How do we know whether the version on the internet is the actual text as it appeared in print? It might be edited, abridged, etc.
Once I have visited on the Internet a site about the Holocaust: a most-respected scholar -among historians at least- was quoted verbatim. The quote was 100% correct in all details but one: a 6 had been replaced by a 1!

As I said, you are free to disbelieve me when I tell you that as a rule I do not search my sources on the internet. I will either buy the book or consult it in the library. I want to thumb it through on the couch.
I am aware of the fact that some books are also available on the internet. This doesn't prove that I used that text instead of a printed version.

I told you again - when I talked to you about info that I possess from for primary sources (Israeli Statistics Agency / Israeli Law Books etc) you evaded them by demanding me to give you a book written by a historian, proving that they primary sources are not invented by me.

In this case I am fully convinced that the Israeli Statistics Agency will have printed this text.
When you would have given the full bibliographical data, I would have tried to find in it in the library. When you were not able to give the complete bibliographical data, this made me very suspicious.

Your information about source criticism is interesting, but you have omitted the first and most important problem: Which book(s) to read about some subject?

So my question is:

When confronted with the information presented by Orange about the Holocaust, which books to read?

As a historian I will immediately push aside all non-academic publications and search for academic studies.
So ALL books without source references and bibliographies can be thrown into the dustbin!
(I agree that doubtless some academic publications will turn out to be better written/ more reliable/ more recent/ more extensive/ less biased/ better documented/ more informative/ more comprehensive/ more intelligent etc, but before we can assess them we have to find them!)

So please answer this question: Which studies to read about the Holocaust?

I would seriously suggest you read:

Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians'

I only read excerpts, but I trust this to be an important book in setting a premisis for discussion.

It basically compares quotes and excerpts used in books of Israeli pro-palestinian 'new historians' and shows that they often omitted words, ignored documents, and even misworded and distorted quotations to prove their point. For that reason, he says, their research is untrustable.

Please acquire the habit of providing complete bibligraphical data when recommending some book! When discussing with scholars there will be less risk to be immediately considered ignorant.

Given I probably can't gain access to most of them - I would have to ask to use more accessible sources.

Most strange! I would expect that every scholarly library paying attention to the Holocaust -something not alien to a Jewish or Zionist community- would have most of these studies in their collection. Are you sure? Is there active censorship in Israel?

Also - since unlike you I do not have records of possible quotations at home - I will often not be able to base my opinion, since I can't always remember where I read what, or quote it when I'm making the post.

What made you able to dismiss the books of Hilberg, Novick and Finkelstein immediately as 'worthless ****'?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[CyberGnu]

I appologize. I mistakenly took your reference to the middle east journal, from washington, as a reference to "washington report" - a resource that Cyber Gnu quoted a few times, and in my opinion is very biased against Israel, though it's relatively correct on the factual part.

Hey, don't drag me into this one. I've only quoted the washington report ONCE, and while doing so I also told you that I merely quoted the FIRST hit on google when I searched for "Jimmy Carter + palestinian elections". I considered the information you requested so obvious that I concluded you were stalling in order to avoid having to conceed the point - That Arafat was democratically elected.

[Heresson]

What are You complaining about?
Turkey up to today denies Turkish holocaust of Armenians and Syrians, moreover, it claims that they were murdering the Turks.

[Sirotnikov]

It appears that at least some of our friction is caused by a completely different training.
Though you are free to disbelieve that I followed any academical historical education, I will continue to 'pretend' I did.

Maybe you left before they taught you no how to deal with possibly biased sources

I would like to point out that in general journalists are the very opposite of historians. Most journalists write on a daily or weekly/monthly base. They usually write about an event that happened most recently, while having access to less than 20% of the relevant facts, without being able to situate this event into some larger perspective.

I agree - which is why I generally dislike journalists that do not have a background in history.

So I was extremely surprised to note that you accepted in the other thread about Iraq/Vietnam c.q. support of Saddam Hussein by the CIA in 1963 the authority of the New York Times.

I didn't accept it is as a positive truth but rather of something that I suspect is possible, and is supported by several well known sources (NYT being one).

I didn't say that I will from now on regard it as absolute truth. It's not my mission. I keep possible events in mind, with a "score" of a likely hood for them being true.

I have heard previous claims of CIA being involved in other "regime changes" and given their likelyhood is true, it raises the "authenticity" score for this event as well.

The opinion of a historian would hardly be influenced, since this article was written 40 years after the event, nor gives it any source references, nor is there any reason to have any faith at all in Roger Morris, about whom no information is available. Probably the only argument in its favour is that the New York Times seems to be a 'respectable' newspaper.

I agree.

The fact that this was an Op-Ed. is even more suspicious and makes me feel uncomfortable.

But at least I gained some new (though yet unconfirmed) information.

Since this is a link to information on the Internet, I would be double suspicious: how do we know whether this article has actually appeared in print? How do we know, when it was printed, if it was?

There was a link to this article on the NYT internet site.

Once I have visited on the Internet a site about the Holocaust: a most-respected scholar -among historians at least- was quoted verbatim. The quote was 100% correct in all details but one: a 6 had been replaced by a 1!

Well sadly this happens not only in internet sites but also in printed publications : According to Efraim Karsh, that's exactly what Israeli "new historian's" did.

As a historian I will immediately push aside all non-academic publications and search for academic studies.
So ALL books without source references and bibliographies can be thrown into the dustbin!
(I agree that doubtless some academic publications will turn out to be better written/ more reliable/ more recent/ more extensive/ less biased/ better documented/ more informative/ more comprehensive/ more intelligent etc, but before we can assess them we have to find them!)

So please answer this question: Which studies to read about the Holocaust?

If you expect to have an academic level discussion with completely documented sources and so forth - I told you in advance - I'm not up for it.

Even if I wanted to, I couldn't provide you with most of my sources. I can niether bring before you holocaust survivors I have talked to, nor can I prove their authenticity.

I don't regard myself as a historian, yet.

But I think that for an arguement on an interenet forum, one can rely on most newspapers and reliable internet sources, unless he can prove they are either baised or inaccurate from other sources.


But do tell me - if you are coming to investigate the early jewish nationhood of the time of the Kingdom of Judea and Israel - what would you do?

According to your own claims, you wouldn't read the bible at all, as it's not 100% reliable. you wouldn't read ancient documents and scribbles found later, since they were not written by historians, and could have been falsified or be very biased.

I really can't imagine how could you , with such an attitude of black and white discrimination between sources, investigate anything before the 20th century.

Please acquire the habit of providing complete bibligraphical data when recommending some book! When discussing with scholars there will be less risk to be immediately considered ignorant.

That's nice, but as far as my memory serves me, you aren't a scholar in History.

And as it seems, even schollars have thier own faults.

One could become a schollar even if he got all C's throughout his studies.

Most strange! I would expect that every scholarly library paying attention to the Holocaust -something not alien to a Jewish or Zionist community- would have most of these studies in their collection. Are you sure? Is there active censorship in Israel?

I'm sure I could access these papers. But again - this is an internet forum - not a schollarship research. I don't intend to invest hundreds of hours of work, just to prove an internet fellow wrong.

I told you in advance - if you expect someone to make some historical research paper like posts, you should go to your university and not to internet forum.

Also, when speaking to 'common folk' and not your university buddies, to refer to people who may have not equal access or equal experience in historical research, as "ignorants" seems to me as general snobishness.


If you are so sure that you are of such a higher schollarship level, then why the heck did you come here to argue about things with me? To rub it in that I still don't have a B.A in Middle Eastern History? (while you also have no such thing iirc).

What made you able to dismiss the books of Hilberg, Novick and Finkelstein immediately as 'worthless ****'?

I haven't dismissed them in particular, but more your general posts.

I remind you again, that you once told me that after reading about Neturei Karta, and some book about world religions, you decided that anything short of following the Halacha is not Judaism.

Furthermore, having proved very little sources, your opinion remains that Judaism is only a religion.


You also seem to ignore any first hand information. It seems to be as if in your opinion all historians do is copy each other's works.

Well, again - someone writing about a new topic would have to quote from sources which haven't been covered before.

Most of my knowledge is based on such first hand sources as newspapers, israeli & foreign encyclopedias, israeli popular books about history, israeli school-books about history, interviews, discussions and lectures from people with expertese in these subjects.

Sure, I may not be a legitimate schollar in this - but I have never claimed to be.

I am however, much less ignorant of the issues than you are, since you neither have a degree in judaistic studies and middle eastern history, nor have you had the sheer amount of first hand sources infuencing your knowledge, as I have.


And would you please stop signing your posts as this was some kind of an international correspndence between schollars, on the subject of jewish history.

it isn't.

I know you're S.Kroeze and I know how to recognize when your posts end.

Even news groups posters don't keep signing thier names on newsgroups that are as lively and as popular as this forum.

[Sirotnikov]

Hey, don't drag me into this one. I've only quoted the washington report ONCE, and while doing so I also told you that I merely quoted the FIRST hit on google when I searched for "Jimmy Carter + palestinian elections". I considered the information you requested so obvious that I concluded you were stalling in order to avoid having to conceed the point - That Arafat was democratically elected.

Wasn't it you who used to quote it to 'prove' israel has chemical weapons?


Furthermore - most 'demcratically elect leaders' don't get a perioud of 1.5 years of undemocratic rule, and an army strong of 80,000 to assure their victory in the following democratical elections.

[Gibsie]

Re: Do I have to spell it for you?

Originally posted by Straybow
[q]That condemnation does not belong to the race, but to the Judean leadership and supporting population of that generation.
Try and think, man!

Well all I'd read before was that you were calling someone a bigot for not labelling the entire Jewish race guilty. But since you've explained your rationalisation, I do not need to think.

[CyberGnu]

Wasn't it you who used to quote it to 'prove' israel has chemical weapons?

Nope. Don't think I've even debated this, actually.

Furthermore - most 'demcratically elect leaders' don't get a perioud of 1.5 years of undemocratic rule, and an army strong of 80,000 to assure their victory in the following democratical elections.

Has nothing to do with it. The question was whether Arafat was democratically elected. Jimmy Carter, as head of the the UN election observers, declared that the election was fair and democratic.

Good attempt of weasling out of admitting you were wrong though. Not succesful, but good. If I remember correctly, in the original thread you just disappeared...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Well all I'd read before was that you were calling someone a bigot for not labelling the entire Jewish race guilty.

No, I only said that whats-his-name was as short-sighted as the bigots he was criticizing. Nothing like your generalization.

But since you've explained your rationalisation, I do not need to think.

Touché!

[Straybow]

Siro, so you were saying you think that Jewish religion changed around 1700, or that various brands of Christianity, etc changed but Jewish religion didn't? I think the tie between nationality and religion among us Goyim was still fairly solid, except in America. In England there was the CofE. In Scotland there was Presbyterianism. In Germany and Norway(?) Lutheranism. In major Swiss cities, Holland, and various other places Calvinism. RCism and EOxy held in West, South, and East Europe, etc.

Well, no matter. The tie between the Jews and their religion was fomented by separation from the Holy Lands, but not in 70 AD. During the exile in Babylon the Jews would leave one wall of the house unfinished, symbolizing their unwillingness to call anything but the Promised Land their home, in acknowledgment of the prophecy of Jeremiah that said the exile would be for 70 yrs.

After the return to Jerusalem they even changed their name. Before the exile they were usually referred to as "Hebrew" (as a race) but after they used the name "Juda" (or "Jew" in anglicized form) in honor of Judah (the smaller of the divided kingdoms/the larger of the 2 faithful tribes). They never again dabbled in idolatry. This change held fast for 300-400 years!

What happened in the diaspora was a change in the way the religion was reckoned. No Temple, no sacrifice, no Land = dilemma. They had to allegorize all rituals, recreating their religion from the ancient foundation. Without the tempering of the Exile they would not have had the mettle to survive losing the Promised Land again and without prophetic promise of return.

For example, the Romani ("Gypsies") were originally from India and practiced some form of Hinduism. Some might have picked up Zoroastrianism. But once they arrived in Europe they adopted RCism (maybe EOxy in the East?) and stuck with it. The Jews might have done the same, still retaining unique cultural attributes and separation, dumping Hebrew religion.

Many of us Christians are glad they didn't, because without the Jews, and especially the Masoretes, we wouldn't have nearly as reliable OT manuscripts or nearly as much understanding of ancient Hebrews.

Edit: forgot Presbys

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Forget even Roman documents...how about Jewish? You said a THIRD of Jews in all of Judea converted to Christianity after the crucifixion. This is a monumental event, if true. There would be SOME historical record of it. You expect me to believe millions of prostletyzing Christians kept quiet about the new faith to which they are converted with passion?

The burden of proof is on you--you made the statement, you need to back it up.

So, again, your speculation on what should be in surviving historical records is all important, and what really is in surviving historical records is untrustworthy (eg, Josephus), and what anyone besides you reads from the events is nothing?

I think I said that before, didn't I? I don't feel like repeating myself, yet repetition is the soul of teaching. So here goes.

We don't see rabbinical writings commenting on the stupidity of fighting against Rome at such cost. We don't see OT-style numberings of families and groups anywhere, nor tallies of the dead, despite the "monumental" event. We don't see direct commentary on politics to attach blame to one party or the other.

I don't claim to be an expert on rabbinical writings, but I do recall what I've learned from various sources over the years. There is no mention of Jesus, no direct refutation of Christian teaching, and much of what is known is inferred from the way rabbinical teachings were phrased to exclude the tenets of the Christian heresy.

We see the same thing in Qumran scrolls. Essenes didn't directly challenge standard Jewish practice, nor engage in any kind of Hellenistic debate. They taught their doctrine, and in some of it is phrasing that seems designed to oppose certain teachings. But the foremost expert on Qumran scrolls (I saw in a TV interview) can only speculate on that.

There is some of this in the Essene writings that were known prior to Qumran, with teachings that seemed designed to oppose the teachings of Paul in the Christian scriptures. This is an inferrence made by scholars, and cannot rise to the level of proof you demand.

Does this mean Christianity didn't exist? Hardly. Even you aren't fool enough to make that claim, yet that is where your "method" (I use the word loosely) of debate leads. After all, there ought to be SOME record, other than the existing records which you reject because you know better than everyone else. I suppose that means there never was a rebellion, it was really a Roman plot to frame the Jews! Quick, we must rewrite the history books, Boris has at last uncovered the Truth!

Typical cry of the fanatic--any critique of the historical accuracy fo your relgious dogma is instantly a product of "sour grapes." People must have an agenda to look at things objectively, yes.

Everyone has an agenda. I'm honest about mine: I believe in Christ, and I proclaim what fragmentary evidence supports the existence of Jesus as a real, historical figure. I don't claim to believe because of historical proof.

You are not honest about your agenda. You try to claim objectivity while insisting on a level of proof which archeology cannot provide on demand. All this merely to whine about the religion you have rejected for personal reasons.

[Sirotnikov]

Nope. Don't think I've even debated this, actually.

I think we did, but the search function is limited in scope.

Has nothing to do with it. The question was whether Arafat was democratically elected. Jimmy Carter, as head of the the UN election observers, declared that the election was fair and democratic.

Good attempt of weasling out of admitting you were wrong though. Not succesful, but good. If I remember correctly, in the original thread you just disappeared...

I wasn't wrong.

You tell me: If prior to the 2000 elections, Bush had received 1.5 years of free presidency, with no balances for his executive power, and no media coverage for his opponent - Al Gore.

Would you call that "fair" and "democratic"?

I'm sure you'd be one of the first people to accuse him of dictatorship.


And I appologize I disappear more and more oftenly but now I do have school assignments and a girlfriend.