[B]Mel Gibson is an ultra-conservative Catholic. I believe he is a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic group that does not follow the teachings of the Vatican II or the pope.
I don't believe Gibson is a member of Opus Dei.
Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"
Accents aside, Temptation is perhaps the most introspective and theologically rich film about Christ ever produced. It is a cinematic consideration of the coexistence of the divine and the human within Jesus, and a questioning search to determine when Jesus himself recognized his own divinity (in the movie, it is at the Crucifixion, a point that none of the Biblical writers cite, though many cite different periods).
Dafoe is not Jewish nor even Roman, but he's definitely the most credible Christ I've ever seen on film.
[B]Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it.
That's not actually true. A prosecutor might not try a case if someone else has already been convicted and punished, for the damage it could do to the justice system, but there's no law to prevent it. Framing someone for a murder you commit and seeing to it that they are executed doesn't free you to walk around say "I did it! I did it!" In fact, if you are involved in getting someone else penalized (executed) for a crime you committed, you could easily end up being charged with two murders.
The Gospels, which were written in the lifetimes of those who saw him, say that the Temple Leaders petitioned for his crucifixion.
The Gospels were all written by humans with very clear political motives. But that doesn't change the fact that crucifixion was a punishment meted out only by the Roman Empire, and that Jewish leaders in First Century palestine had no authority to crucify or request the crucifixion of anyone.
Also, the earliest Gospel dates from approximately 30 years after the crucifixion. It was written by Mark, who was a convert to Christianity who studied under first Paul and later Peter, and whose Gospel is considered to be Petrine in its theology. He was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion.
Neither were Matthew or Luke.
John Zebedee was a witness, but he also did not write the gospel named after him. It was written by either John, his disciple, or perhaps the Johannine communtiy, after the passing of the apostle. Written perhaps as late as 110, it is the fullest theological incarnation of First Century Christology. It is also almost entirely allegorical in nature and does not even attempt to ascribe to the timeline of the earlier works. It is Christologically and soteriologically the richest of the Gospels, but also the hardest to make into a linear tale.
It's a shame that Gibson would take John as his template. It least lends itself to cinematic interpretation, is the most anti-Semitic of the Gospels (written in part as an appeal to the Empire) and is the least representative of the Four.
Quote:
I doubt every new rabbi/prophet that appeared in Judea in the first century was on the Romans Ten Most Wanted list or even their radar screen.
No, but every rabbi associated with John the Baptist almost certainly was. The Baptist was considered a potential precursor to the Messiah, whom the Empire feared would lead a revolution to establish a separate Israel. This was also what the Zealots expected, which is why many of the Zealots (including Judas Iscariot) turned on Jesus in the end. Jesus was perhaps a student of the Baptist, and certainly was associated with him, thus putting him on the Roman Radar, so to speak.
I thought that the Jesus=god equation was something started by Constantine in order to make it all more comprehendable to the Roman-religion people within the Empire. , , whereas before that it was more that Jesus was the Son of God
The divine nature of Christ was clearly the orthodox position of the Church, as reflected in the non-Gnostic gospels (both canonical and not) and the writings of the early Doctors and Fathers.
The earliest debate was not if Christ was divine, but when his divinity was imparted. Later debates centered around the interrelation between his humanity and his divinity.
Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.
According to what I've read about Opus Dei, the Pope himself granted them special privileges; for example, as a group, they aren't subject to the authority of the Bishops.
They're also very secretive, and also take part in all kinds of rituals, like flogging themselves with a whip in penance (among other things). They're also quite wealthy, and fairly powerful. They seem to be something like Catholicism's version of the Illuminati. Hmm.
What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty?
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument. I was making the point that groups like the ADL may watch this movie, and because of the gore (which is really the only thing *new* about how this story is being told) will make the CLAIM that Gibson is trying to paint Jews as "blood thirsty". I didn't say that they actually *were* bloodthirsty.
I was saying, that given the breakdown of the population in that area at that time... it's almost impossible that there weren't *some* Jews looking on as Christ (who had committed no crime to speak of) was put through this ordeal. That is a separate issue from "whether they were powerless under Roman rule". So if Gibson protrays the SCENE accurately (i.e. Jews present and doing nothing), then the ADL will spin that as him "portraying Jews as bloodthirsty", when all he is really doing is showing a crucifixion in a more realistic way than has been done till now. So he can't win where the media spin is concerned can he?
If he cleans up the blood and makes everything "more family-friendly", then he has -- essentially -- failed to tell the story in a more accurate way (and thus is no different from any other movie about this topic). If he shows what he really suspects a crucifixion was like (and we have no reason to doubt it was a bloody affair), then he's trying to make a political statement all of a sudden... I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
Quote:
I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>
Yes, you're right. I'm a sinister bastard trying to drag people into a debate so they will side with Mel Gibson (... or something). I haven't said one harsh word to anyone in this thread whether they disagree with me or not, so try and extend me the same courtesy OK? Trying hard not to turn this thread into a flame-fest.
\
You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to make statements about Jews, when what I am trying to do is show a context that the mass media will never place on this situation, in an attempt to explain why the ADL is so upset (and maybe why they shouldn't be). I have even clearly stated: I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??
I stand by my initial argument: the ADL and groups like them are really at odds with the story itself, and that it has been given "new life" by the cinematic experience (i.e. images and not just words). And because we have never seen such a portrayal (no effort to hide the blood, etc.), I think it's shocking to them and so they come out and rally against the movie and its makers, rather than just saying:
"We do not believe the story in the Book of John is necessarily accurate or fair in how it portrays Jews at the time of Christ. And though we respect other religions and their right to preach the Book of John, it still concerns us that a movie has been made which depicts the crucifixion so vividly, when from a historical point of view, we aren't really sure how everything transpired."
Instead, the ADL immediately cries "anti-semitism" and makes a fuss in all the ways necessary to make a big media circus out of the whole thing, rather than debating it calmly and intelligently and being more forthcoming about what it is they disagree with.
Is that [really an "unfair" interpretation of what is transpiring] in your mind??
Again, I will have to wait until I see it, but my sense is, Gibson has made a film that makes no attempt to hide the grotesqueries of the act of crucifixion (anyone's crucifixion), and it has shocked people into this debate, but they can't own up to what shocks them.
I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic?
Um. The objections to this film go a bit further than just violence.
Many thanks for the link. I'm going to read through it more thoroughly as soon as I've finished this lab report I've got to do.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that until we actually see the movie (or get our hands on a script) will we be able to make any real judgement call as to whether or not Gibson was really trying to make an anti-Semetic movie. If any of you have seen the trailer, could you comment on certain elements of it (if any) that would clearly be anti-Semetic? (I'm not trying to be confrontational, btw, just simply curious.)
I can definitely see myself in the middle of the theatre with a clipboard and a small lamp, reading over a printout of the site ShawnJ linked to with a pen in my hand.
"Hmm...Accurate portrayal of Pilate as tyrant...check...Jewish religious imagery...check...Roman soldiers...check..."
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument..
I didn't miss your argument. The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have. You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!
What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!
I have the same thread running in MacNN, and I was alerted to this thread by one of your members. If you ever happen by MacNN, and would like to browse my thread. Invitation extended.
The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have.
If you haven't read or heard any comments from the ADL or others in the media calling this movie (in effect) "one that depicts the Jews of the time as blood-thirsy", you're not paying attention. It's all over the place! Just watch a few interviews on MSNBC or whoever happens to be covering it in the coming days. The detractors say the same kinds of things, over and over... and over.
"This movie unfairly blames the Jews..."
"This movie makes Jews look cruel..."
"This movie overstates what happend..."
"This movie is an unfair portrayal..."
Ad infinitum... but the implication of all these is the same: the Jews were out to see Jesus executed in this movie (and the ADL and others don't feel it's true / fair).
Quote:
You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!
Idiocy. Won't even honor it with a rebuttal. Given your post count is in single digit territory, if I were you, I might take a hint from the fact that other veteran posters in here (even those who may disagree with me) are not taking the "in your face" type of stance that you are. That is to say, they know me a lot better than you do and so if they don't see anything wrong with the way I'm making my argument... well you figure out the rest.
Quote:
What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!
A) I've made an effort to reply to all of your assertions thus far, no matter how baseless they seem to me, but your attitude is getting old fast. I haven't said a thing that seems to offend anyone, other than you. So knock off the "snake" and "shy" talk. As if I've somehow dodged something. The more you post, the more you come off as a troll and nothing more.
I DON'T KNOW what connections and ideas the general public "should draw" from this movie. I only know what the ADL *seems* to be drawing from it, based on their FAQ and several interviews with ADL supporters than I've seen on TV. Intelligent people will make up their own minds when they see it, and as I've said THREE TIMES NOW, I haven't yet MADE MINE UP, because I haven't seen the movie. I've made crystal clear (to everyone buy you apparently) that I am trying to show some CONTEXT (you know what context is, right?) as to why the ADL might be so upset about this (beyond just the superficial issue of "gory depictions").
I'm trying to look at the whole thing with an analytical / critical eye... apparently this bothers you.
Note that I never said they were WRONG to be upset, just that (TO THIS POINT) I think they might be overreacting somewhat. Who knows... I might see the movie this week and totally change my mind about that part. Maybe Gibson put all kinds of inappropriate themes in the movie and I will side with the ADL... I'm just making points based on what I've seen and heard to date.
Get that through your head before you post to me again, OK?
C) I don't have an agenda, so you can stop badgering me as if I do. If your next post doesn't bag the accusatory overtones, don't expect a response.
I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?
Why? Because according to The Official Roman Edition a small number of subservient Jews supposedly went along with the execution of a popular Jewish Rabbi antithetical to the political situation in a country suffering the brutality of Roman occupation?
As a dane I am truly offended by the silly way Vikings are portraied in "Erik the Viking". And there is no historical proof at all they played "axe the redhead" with that woman as it is presented.
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?... How fair minded of you.
Go read my posts again. I'm not responding to another word you say until you can demonstrate that you've read them all. You're either really bad at reading comprehension, or you're just trolling for an emotional response from me. Hint: you won't get it.
Anyone else care to get this thread back on track in the meantime? Let's not let this thing get derailed at page 5...
Comments
Originally posted by rogue master
[B]Mel Gibson is an ultra-conservative Catholic. I believe he is a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic group that does not follow the teachings of the Vatican II or the pope.
I don't believe Gibson is a member of Opus Dei.
Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.
Kirk
Originally posted by Slackula
It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"
Accents aside, Temptation is perhaps the most introspective and theologically rich film about Christ ever produced. It is a cinematic consideration of the coexistence of the divine and the human within Jesus, and a questioning search to determine when Jesus himself recognized his own divinity (in the movie, it is at the Crucifixion, a point that none of the Biblical writers cite, though many cite different periods).
Dafoe is not Jewish nor even Roman, but he's definitely the most credible Christ I've ever seen on film.
The book is a hard, hard read. But worth it.
Kirk
Originally posted by Frank777
[B]Even in our laws, if one person gets the death penalty for someone else crime, the other person can't be charged for it.
That's not actually true. A prosecutor might not try a case if someone else has already been convicted and punished, for the damage it could do to the justice system, but there's no law to prevent it. Framing someone for a murder you commit and seeing to it that they are executed doesn't free you to walk around say "I did it! I did it!" In fact, if you are involved in getting someone else penalized (executed) for a crime you committed, you could easily end up being charged with two murders.
Kirk
Originally posted by Frank777
The Gospels, which were written in the lifetimes of those who saw him, say that the Temple Leaders petitioned for his crucifixion.
The Gospels were all written by humans with very clear political motives. But that doesn't change the fact that crucifixion was a punishment meted out only by the Roman Empire, and that Jewish leaders in First Century palestine had no authority to crucify or request the crucifixion of anyone.
Also, the earliest Gospel dates from approximately 30 years after the crucifixion. It was written by Mark, who was a convert to Christianity who studied under first Paul and later Peter, and whose Gospel is considered to be Petrine in its theology. He was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion.
Neither were Matthew or Luke.
John Zebedee was a witness, but he also did not write the gospel named after him. It was written by either John, his disciple, or perhaps the Johannine communtiy, after the passing of the apostle. Written perhaps as late as 110, it is the fullest theological incarnation of First Century Christology. It is also almost entirely allegorical in nature and does not even attempt to ascribe to the timeline of the earlier works. It is Christologically and soteriologically the richest of the Gospels, but also the hardest to make into a linear tale.
It's a shame that Gibson would take John as his template. It least lends itself to cinematic interpretation, is the most anti-Semitic of the Gospels (written in part as an appeal to the Empire) and is the least representative of the Four.
Quote:
I doubt every new rabbi/prophet that appeared in Judea in the first century was on the Romans Ten Most Wanted list or even their radar screen.
No, but every rabbi associated with John the Baptist almost certainly was. The Baptist was considered a potential precursor to the Messiah, whom the Empire feared would lead a revolution to establish a separate Israel. This was also what the Zealots expected, which is why many of the Zealots (including Judas Iscariot) turned on Jesus in the end. Jesus was perhaps a student of the Baptist, and certainly was associated with him, thus putting him on the Roman Radar, so to speak.
Kirk
Originally posted by pfflam
I thought that the Jesus=god equation was something started by Constantine in order to make it all more comprehendable to the Roman-religion people within the Empire. , , whereas before that it was more that Jesus was the Son of God
The divine nature of Christ was clearly the orthodox position of the Church, as reflected in the non-Gnostic gospels (both canonical and not) and the writings of the early Doctors and Fathers.
The earliest debate was not if Christ was divine, but when his divinity was imparted. Later debates centered around the interrelation between his humanity and his divinity.
KIrk
Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't believe Gibson is a member of Opus Dei.
Nor is Opus Dei schismatic, as you imply. It is in communion with the Pope, and while it is very conservative, and very much pre-Vatican II, it does pay lip services to the teachings of the most recent Council, as any faithful Catholic organization must.
According to what I've read about Opus Dei, the Pope himself granted them special privileges; for example, as a group, they aren't subject to the authority of the Bishops.
They're also very secretive, and also take part in all kinds of rituals, like flogging themselves with a whip in penance (among other things). They're also quite wealthy, and fairly powerful. They seem to be something like Catholicism's version of the Illuminati. Hmm.
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
What's the connection between Jews being under ruthless Roman occupation and being unable to do anything about it - as one of their own Rabbi's is crucified (one among thousands of Jews crucified by, and otherwise murdered by the Roman death machine) and Jews being Blood thirsty?
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument. I was making the point that groups like the ADL may watch this movie, and because of the gore (which is really the only thing *new* about how this story is being told) will make the CLAIM that Gibson is trying to paint Jews as "blood thirsty". I didn't say that they actually *were* bloodthirsty.
I was saying, that given the breakdown of the population in that area at that time... it's almost impossible that there weren't *some* Jews looking on as Christ (who had committed no crime to speak of) was put through this ordeal. That is a separate issue from "whether they were powerless under Roman rule". So if Gibson protrays the SCENE accurately (i.e. Jews present and doing nothing), then the ADL will spin that as him "portraying Jews as bloodthirsty", when all he is really doing is showing a crucifixion in a more realistic way than has been done till now. So he can't win where the media spin is concerned can he?
If he cleans up the blood and makes everything "more family-friendly", then he has -- essentially -- failed to tell the story in a more accurate way (and thus is no different from any other movie about this topic). If he shows what he really suspects a crucifixion was like (and we have no reason to doubt it was a bloody affair), then he's trying to make a political statement all of a sudden... I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
I find your line of argument extremely sly and provocative. In fact, I would find it blood libelous!! <insert epithet>
Yes, you're right. I'm a sinister bastard trying to drag people into a debate so they will side with Mel Gibson (... or something). I haven't said one harsh word to anyone in this thread whether they disagree with me or not, so try and extend me the same courtesy OK? Trying hard not to turn this thread into a flame-fest.
You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to make statements about Jews, when what I am trying to do is show a context that the mass media will never place on this situation, in an attempt to explain why the ADL is so upset (and maybe why they shouldn't be). I have even clearly stated: I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??
I stand by my initial argument: the ADL and groups like them are really at odds with the story itself, and that it has been given "new life" by the cinematic experience (i.e. images and not just words). And because we have never seen such a portrayal (no effort to hide the blood, etc.), I think it's shocking to them and so they come out and rally against the movie and its makers, rather than just saying:
"We do not believe the story in the Book of John is necessarily accurate or fair in how it portrays Jews at the time of Christ. And though we respect other religions and their right to preach the Book of John, it still concerns us that a movie has been made which depicts the crucifixion so vividly, when from a historical point of view, we aren't really sure how everything transpired."
Instead, the ADL immediately cries "anti-semitism" and makes a fuss in all the ways necessary to make a big media circus out of the whole thing, rather than debating it calmly and intelligently and being more forthcoming about what it is they disagree with.
Is that [really an "unfair" interpretation of what is transpiring] in your mind??
Again, I will have to wait until I see it, but my sense is, Gibson has made a film that makes no attempt to hide the grotesqueries of the act of crucifixion (anyone's crucifixion), and it has shocked people into this debate, but they can't own up to what shocks them.
Originally posted by rampancy
I think I have to agree with Moogs on this one. Sure, I can definitely sympathize with those who are concerned about how the movie can come across as anti-Semetic, but in all honesty, how could anyone make a movie about The Passion without making it appear that it could be anti-Semetic?
Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion
Um. The objections to this film go a bit further than just violence.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion
Um. The objections to this film go a bit further than just violence.
Many thanks for the link. I'm going to read through it more thoroughly as soon as I've finished this lab report I've got to do.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that until we actually see the movie (or get our hands on a script) will we be able to make any real judgement call as to whether or not Gibson was really trying to make an anti-Semetic movie. If any of you have seen the trailer, could you comment on certain elements of it (if any) that would clearly be anti-Semetic? (I'm not trying to be confrontational, btw, just simply curious.)
I can definitely see myself in the middle of the theatre with a clipboard and a small lamp, reading over a printout of the site ShawnJ linked to with a pen in my hand.
"Hmm...Accurate portrayal of Pilate as tyrant...check...Jewish religious imagery...check...Roman soldiers...check..."
Originally posted by Moogs
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument..
I didn't miss your argument. The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have. You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!
What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!
You're missing the thrust of my earlier argument
You're the one that snaked that line of argument
This is starting to turn into one big, long, hard argument.
-GF
The Passion of The Christ : MacNN / Forums / Lounge
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
I didn't miss your argument.
Yes, you did. And you still are...
The fact is, as far as I know, the ADL hasn't specifically made that claim. You have.
If you haven't read or heard any comments from the ADL or others in the media calling this movie (in effect) "one that depicts the Jews of the time as blood-thirsy", you're not paying attention. It's all over the place! Just watch a few interviews on MSNBC or whoever happens to be covering it in the coming days. The detractors say the same kinds of things, over and over... and over.
"This movie unfairly blames the Jews..."
"This movie makes Jews look cruel..."
"This movie overstates what happend..."
"This movie is an unfair portrayal..."
Ad infinitum... but the implication of all these is the same: the Jews were out to see Jesus executed in this movie (and the ADL and others don't feel it's true / fair).
You're the one that snaked that line of argument trying to dress it up as an argument the ADL might make. The argument is yours. And you've still to explain it. So what's the connection?!!
Idiocy. Won't even honor it with a rebuttal. Given your post count is in single digit territory, if I were you, I might take a hint from the fact that other veteran posters in here (even those who may disagree with me) are not taking the "in your face" type of stance that you are. That is to say, they know me a lot better than you do and so if they don't see anything wrong with the way I'm making my argument... well you figure out the rest.
What is the connection someone should make as they watch Jews haplessly suffer the brutality of Roman occupation and them being blood thirsty? You think that connection might be there in the movie? You think it might be in the story - i.e., The Official Roman Edition? I want to know where you got this idea from. C'mon Moogs, don't be shy. Speak up!
A) I've made an effort to reply to all of your assertions thus far, no matter how baseless they seem to me, but your attitude is getting old fast. I haven't said a thing that seems to offend anyone, other than you. So knock off the "snake" and "shy" talk. As if I've somehow dodged something. The more you post, the more you come off as a troll and nothing more.
I'm trying to look at the whole thing with an analytical / critical eye... apparently this bothers you.
Note that I never said they were WRONG to be upset, just that (TO THIS POINT) I think they might be overreacting somewhat. Who knows... I might see the movie this week and totally change my mind about that part. Maybe Gibson put all kinds of inappropriate themes in the movie and I will side with the ADL... I'm just making points based on what I've seen and heard to date.
Get that through your head before you post to me again, OK?
C) I don't have an agenda, so you can stop badgering me as if I do. If your next post doesn't bag the accusatory overtones, don't expect a response.
Originally posted by Moogs
I don't believe today's Jewish community should in any way be tied to or held responsible for what happened 2000 years ago. Can I be anymore clear??
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?
Why? Because according to The Official Roman Edition a small number of subservient Jews supposedly went along with the execution of a popular Jewish Rabbi antithetical to the political situation in a country suffering the brutality of Roman occupation?
How fair minded of you.
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
As opposed to the Jewish community being responsible 2000 years ago? Is that it?... How fair minded of you.
Go read my posts again. I'm not responding to another word you say until you can demonstrate that you've read them all. You're either really bad at reading comprehension, or you're just trolling for an emotional response from me. Hint: you won't get it.
Anyone else care to get this thread back on track in the meantime? Let's not let this thing get derailed at page 5...
8)