Is there a 'World Jewish Conspiracy'?

[KrazyHorse]

propaganda

[Kuciwalker]

ZOG officially changed the spelling.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a 'World Jewish Conspiracy'?

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


So you do answer my posts.

Good.

Do you have any responses to claims I made against ... well... pretty much everything you posted about Jews?


For instance, equating a popular, non-government effort to help communicate Israel on the web, with... erm... "World Jewish Conspiracy?"

I thought I'd add some humor to this thread. If you don't appreciate my humor, tough. Although I'll admit that it might have been better for me to have added a smiley so that people like yourself would not think that I really believe that the Megaphone software has a serious effect on the battle to influence internet opinion about Israel, so I'll do so now. I actually believe the Megaphone software scheme is probably counter-productive to its intent because its existence can't be kept a secret and anti-Israel people can use it to find and influence the same polls, and we know that there are more anti-Israel than pro-Israel people in this world.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


I am perfectly aware that there's some anti-judaic bias in the New Testament.

Perhaps that's why I quoted the relevant passage, do you think ?

Here's what you just said:

But if You disagree with them, You have to have a basis that can't be denied, and an attitude that can't be accused of being biased in any way.

So if we disagree with the Bible, we have to show our lack of bias. However it seems that the New Testament's 'version' can be accepted as, ah, 'gospel', despite what you admit is an evident anti-semitic characterisation of the Jewish community.

Brilliant logic.

But that prove anything, just makes it more probable.

Oh rubbish.

Makes what more probable ?

That the New Testament versions are a true account ?

That the characters of Pilate and the Jewish leaders are accurate depictions ?

Try being more precise.

According to the Bible, Jesus was crucified by Romans, but under jewish pressure.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was executed by Roman authorities for a crime against the Roman state- not by Jews for blasphemy against Judaism or by Jewish civil authorities for crimes against a Jewish state or ruler.

The only trial in the Fourth Gospel is before the Roman governor of Judaea.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

John 18:31

That's for the way of death argument.

Disproved.

If there was an angry mob gathering around me, I could've done the same. Nothing special. Bah, he ordered not to use swords - while he could. This story proves his bloodthirstyness how?

I don't recall aiming to 'prove' Pilate's 'bloodthirstyness'. Nice try at attempting to muddy the waters, though.

Josephus's depiction of a ruthless Pilate who has no qualms at angering and killing Jews and using monies from their Temple funds is clearly at odds with the weak and vacillating figure in the Gospels, eager to please Jews.

"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.

He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw.

When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal.

They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising."

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62

He furthered angered the Jews by bringing the Roman standards within the city walls of Jerusalem- violating the Jewish tenets and customs regarding idols and false gods.

Really anxious to please the Jewish citizens of Rome, wasn't he ?

I don't think these would exterminate Jews if it wasn't for the pressure of Hitler.

Really. It seems to me that the history of Roman Catholicism shows a pre-disposition on the part of Catholic communities and church authorities to discriminate against Jews, forcibly convert Jewish communities, and kill Jews long, long before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

In fact even in the relevant period, the Vatican and church hierarchy went out of their way to agree an accord with an atheist leader of Italian Fascists (in preference to an Italian Catholic party) and the lapsed Catholic Deist leader of the Nazi Party (in preference to the German Catholic Party).

Which of the parties were more anti-semitic in their deeds and words ?

Just as they were helping Jews during the war.

Brilliant- you equate the efforts of individual Catholics helping isolated Jews with the despicable aid offered to war criminals and Jew-killers to evade justice by the Church hierarchy.

One is a duty enjoined by the Christian god and Christian teachings- the other makes a mockery of Catholic beliefs.

Denmark is surrounded mostly by sea,

Denmark is a country that has its only land border with Germany. Denmark was under Nazi control in 1943 when it rescued its Jews.

Slovakia (head of a state a Catholic priest) and Croatia had been aiding the Nazi campaign to murder the Jews of Europe.

with countries that were not involved in conflict within sight.

Countries ? You mean the Nazi-occupied Netherlands and Norway ?

Or Sweden ? Which as far as I know was only one country at the time in question and which was still trading with Nazi Germany...

and it only helped danish jews

Oh dear!

Clearly saving Danish Jews isn't enough. The Danes should have saved all of Europe's Jews.

Over the course of a few days, more than 7,000 Danish Jews reached safety in Sweden

How many do you suggest is a reasonable figure for the (mainly) Protestant Danes to have saved to qualify as good people or righteous Christians ?

when it comes to the ones seeking help from other countries, they were left to die.

Really ? And what's your evidence for this statement ?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
So if we disagree with the Bible, we have to show our lack of bias. However it seems that the New Testament's 'version' can be accepted as, ah, 'gospel', despite what you admit is an evident anti-semitic characterisation of the Jewish community.

Unlike You, the authors of the Bible knew what has happened. I never claimed it should be accepted as 100% true, au contraire, I, as You have noticed, admitted there's some anti-judaic bias (which is not the same with antisemitism). I am sorry if I held You to higher standarts of rational thinking and neutrality than people living +1900 years ago. That some account is critical towards Jews, and shows some bias in commentary, doesn't necessarily mean its content is flawed.

Oh rubbish.

Makes what more probable ?

That the New Testament versions are a true account ?

That the characters of Pilate and the Jewish leaders are accurate depictions ?

Try being more precise.

It makes it more probable that there may not be completely true. Perhaps your lack of understanding comes from my mistake - it should be "but that doesn't prove anything" or "it proves nothing"

According to the New Testament, Jesus was executed by Roman authorities for a crime against the Roman state- not by Jews for blasphemy against Judaism or by Jewish civil authorities for crimes against a Jewish state or ruler.
The only trial in the Fourth Gospel is before the Roman governor of Judaea.
John 18:31

It's not the only gospel, and as far as I remember, in the synoptics it's a bit different.

Disproved.

Not at all

I don't recall aiming to 'prove' Pilate's 'bloodthirstyness'.

What were You trying to prove, then?

Josephus's depiction of a ruthless Pilate who has no qualms at angering and killing Jews and using monies from their Temple funds is clearly at odds with the weak and vacillating figure in the Gospels, eager to please Jews.

Perhaps Joseph is wrong? And men act differently in different situations. Or perhaps he was happy that there is a division among Jews?

Really anxious to please the Jewish citizens of Rome, wasn't he ?

They weren't citizens of Rome... I'd expect You to know what "a citizen of Rome" means

Really. It seems to me that the history of Roman Catholicism shows a pre-disposition on the part of Catholic communities and church authorities to discriminate against Jews, forcibly convert Jewish communities, and kill Jews long, long before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

If Catholic Church as a whole wanted to crush the Jews completely, it would have done that to a great happiness of the population. Religious conflicts appear everywhere. Jews were often happy to hurt christians too.

In fact even in the relevant period, the Vatican and church hierarchy went out of their way to agree an accord with an atheist leader of Italian Fascists (in preference to an Italian Catholic party) and the lapsed Catholic Deist leader of the Nazi Party (in preference to the German Catholic Party).

Yeah, surely they thought about Jews when doing that, and surely they knew exactly what would happen to Jews
The aim of RCC was to stop communism, not to hurt the Jews.
As far as I know, even later Zabotynski wanted to get a deal with Hitler to fulfill his zionist goals, so it's not like no-one was talking to Hitler but Teh Evil Catholics.

Brilliant- you equate the efforts of individual Catholics helping isolated Jews with the despicable aid offered to war criminals and Jew-killers to evade justice by the Church hierarchy.

The church's hierarchy, including the pope, was helping the Jews as well.

Denmark is a country that has its only land border with Germany. Denmark was under Nazi control in 1943 when it rescued its Jews.

Yeah, Sweden is so far, far away.

Or Sweden ? Which as far as I know was only one country at the time in question and which was still trading with Nazi Germany...

One country, true.
but Sweden was trading with Germany, but not in Jews, and it's just declared it would accept any Jew fleeing from Germans. You can see Sweden from Copenhagen. It's only about 8000 people. Danes were considered a brotherly race and didn't face the consequences that may have been faced by other nations. They had large autonomy under occupation. German authorities didn't try to stop the action. Unlike Jews in eastern Europe, Jews were assimilated and it was easier to treat them as a part of danish nation.

Clearly saving Danish Jews isn't enough. The Danes should have saved all of Europe's Jews.

No, the ones that were in Denmark and were asking for help.

How many do you suggest is a reasonable figure for the (mainly) Protestant Danes to have saved to qualify as good people or righteous Christians ?

Well, there were 100 000 or so Jews that survived hidden in Poland. Some were hiding themselves in the forests etc, of course.

Really ? And what's your evidence for this statement ?

I've read it in one article years ago. I don't remember it, but try searching the web...

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/supplem/trolle.htm

After Hitler’s seizure of power a number of political refugees came to Denmark. The authorities there were hostile to them. Indeed during the early occupation and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Danish police arrested quite a few German exiles and handed them over to the Gestapo.
(...)
Hans Hedtoft, the Chair of the Matteoti Committee and later a leading figure in Social Democracy, had, on the 9th or 10th of April 1940, approached the Danish police and asked them to destroy their archives on the exiles but they refused and instead handed the material over to the Germans

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/05/news/danes.php

Rasmussen said the apology concerned Jews but also all others who were "handed over to an uncertain fate in Hitler's Germany with the active cooperation of the Danish authorities

You are very biased against catholics, molly.

[Ecthy]

Here we go again.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a 'World Jewish Conspiracy'?

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer
I thought I'd add some humor to this thread. If you don't appreciate my humor, tough.

I appologize then.

It was unclear to me, and I assumed you were somehow posting your honest opinion.

A smilie would have helped.

[KrazyHorse]

I thought he was being slightly ironic, but was unsure (given his predilection for conspiracy theories)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Unlike You, the authors of the Bible knew what has happened.

Oh drivel.

Where did you get that notion from ? None of it is eye-witness reporting as we know it. The various gospel texts were written well after the event and collated by others.

I never claimed it should be accepted as 100% true

So how on earth are we meant to read this:

The New Testament claims otherwise and there are no other sources about it, right?

Sounds to me like someone is saying we should accept the New Testament versions because those are the only ones.

au contraire, I, as You have noticed, admitted there's some anti-judaic bias

Only after it was mentioned by me, in response to your remark about any critic of the 'official bible version' having to show their lack of bias !

(which is not the same with antisemitism)

In which respect ? Just hate the faith and not the person ?

As Isreal Zangwill put it so succinctly:

The Jews are a frightened people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have broken down their nerves.

Especially the last century...

I am sorry if I held You to higher standarts of rational thinking and neutrality than people living +1900 years ago.

I wasn't aware you were doing so; a standard for you to aim for, perhaps...

That some account is critical towards Jews, and shows some bias in commentary, doesn't necessarily mean its content is flawed.

Of course it does, if we're meant to believe it's an UNBIASED UNCRITICAL historical account with an accurate depiction of events that are meant to have occurred involving Jews and Romans.

Good grief.

It makes it more probable that there may not be completely true.

In English, please.

Perhaps your lack of understanding comes from my mistake

In logic, sense or language skills ? Be more precise.

It's not the only gospel

No, really ? I had missed out on the four gospels bit...

and as far as I remember, in the synoptics it's a bit different

Yeah, they do a great job of agreeing with each other.

Not at all

Wow. You didn't win any debating prizes, did you ?

What were You trying to prove, then?

Obvious from my posts. And not what you claimed I was trying to do.

Perhaps Joseph is wrong?

Why ? Why not the gospels ?

Or perhaps he was happy that there is a division among Jews?

I prefer not to speculate needlessly.

They weren't citizens of Rome... I'd expect You to know what "a citizen of Rome" means

I meant citizens as 'subjects'. If you can be illogical and vague, I can occasionally be imprecise.

If Catholic Church as a whole wanted to crush the Jews completely, it would have done that to a great happiness of the population.

Really ? How many legions has the Pope ? as a Georgian once said.

It wasn't ever possible for the Church, militant or otherwise, to 'crush' all the Jews.

[Barnabas]

The church never tried to crush all jews. The way jews were treated for example in the Papal States, the only territory directly ruled by the pope, was jews as second class citizens living in their quarter of the city of rome, but not "crushed".

But for many centuries, had the pope decided to start a crusade against jews, jews for sure have been exterminated at least in western europe, and europeans would have obeyed happily.
That does not mean crushing all jews since there would still be jews in the islamic world and orthodox christian lands.


Regular europeans, be them peasants or monarchs, were more anti semitic than the church, the church often had to tell them during the crusades to stop killing the jews, altough probably many of them wouldnt have been anti semitic in first place had they not been told by the church that jews killed jesus.

But in the last centuries the jews killed jesus thing was not very important, and anti semitism was more due to hatred against the "jewish banker", the important positions of jews, jealousy, resentment, against the rich jew, and racial stuff. Not religious reasons.


To illustrate the difference between antisemitism of the middle ages and of the last 2-3 centuries.
When Queen Isabella expulsed the jews race was not an issue , jews who converted to christianity could stay.
In nazi germany jews who converted to christianity and spoke perfect german were killed, beause the issue was race, and race can not be changed.

edit: I know there were blood purity laws in Spain, but it was different, it ws about showing you had no muslim or jewish ancestors, and that you belonged to the old christian population of spain who reconquered the land, and could be a member of the nobility.

[Barnabas]

for example, basques, a whole ethnic group in spain, were nobles, since they had never been under muslims control, in spain it was said hat to serve the king, all you needed was being basque and knowing to read and write.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Regular europeans, be them peasants or monarchs, were more anti semitic than the church, the church often had to tell them during the crusades to stop killing the jews, altough probably many of them wouldnt have been anti semitic in first place had they not been told by the church that jews killed jesus.

The "Regular europeans (...) were more anti semitic than the church" part is debatable, several medieval monarchs gave Jews a special status (like Friedrich II. for all Jews in the HRE) incl. special protection - against payment though - but this was similar to the practice in muslim countries where non-muslims (as dhimmis) had to pay special taxes.

[Barnabas]

The church was for sure anti semitic too, we are just comparing degrees of antisemitism.

[BeBMan]

As a German I don't feel good without showing some pedanteria here and there.

[Cort Haus]

You mis-spelt 'pedantistitudinality'.