Jews

[[ÄK]LËGÖLÄS]

Some questions for discussion about Jews.

1)Why are they disproportinately more wealthy than other minority groups (that is IF we group them as a race)
And if you don't beleive that they are, why have they been stereotyped that way.

2)Have jews done anything to deserve the persecution that they have recieved over the past 2 millenia.

3)Do jews really beleive that the messiah has not arrived and will come to earth to reign for 2000 years.

4)why don't jews beleive chrsit was the messaih?

[Geoff332]

1. The most likely explanation is the prohibition of ursury maintained by Christian religions for most of their history, and still maintained by Muslim faith. As a result, the Jewish people became money lenders and bankers. There are other explanations, to do with the way the Jewish culture preserves itself despite being in other nations, but these are a little less convincing. I think the religious (and institutional) ban on ursury is the most likely causal factor.

2. Nobody deserves persecution -- or to be the target of genocide. Being Jewish doesn't change ones most basic human rights to life and autonomy.

3. Yes (although there are exceptions, messianic Jews or Jews for Christ).

4. Because they do not believe the person of Jesus embodied their prophecies of a messiah. The prophecies contained a lot of fairly specific things that the Messiah would do -- Jesus did some, but not all of them. It was also a partially political decision, much the same way as the later reformation both changed the Catholic Church and estanlished the protestant churches, Christ both changes Judeism and established Christian Churches.

[[ÄK]LËGÖLÄS]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 11 2003, 05:20 PM 4. Because they do not believe the person of Jesus embodied their prophecies of a messiah. The prophecies contained a lot of fairly specific things that the Messiah would do -- Jesus did some, but not all of them. It was also a partially political decision, much the same way as the later reformation both changed the Catholic Church and estanlished the protestant churches, Christ both changes Judeism and established Christian Churches.

So do jews believe in some of the teachings of jesus.?

What do they think of the claims jesus made?

Are jews supposed to be following old testament law?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Unless I am mistaken, the Jews regard Jesus as a prophet rather than a deity. They follow the version of the bible that they wrote, not non-Hebrew translations.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain of what I did post...

As far as what they may have done that encouraged prosecution:
#1 They have a strong cultural identity that won them no friends in Feudal Europe.
#2 They had the bad taste to have a stronger faith than the Christians of that era.
#3 They are stubborn and want to do things their way.

Personally, I have a great deal of respect for the Jewish people, even though I think that belief in any God is silly...

i have a question:

according to the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible, basically), Each time a Jew sins, he or she must sacrifice a lamb or similar animal.

they don't. they couldnt anyway, its against the law.

so ummm.... how are your sins forgiven if you're a jew?

[RebelWithanAK]

1) Because in Catholic Europe, Jews were not allowed to own property when real estate was the source of most wealth and position. As such they made their money by trading and lending.

2) Absolutely not.

3) Technically yes.

4) Because Christ was a rebel rabbi; a rabblerouser who attracted unwanted attention from Roman colonialists. He was a rabbi, but a factionalist who could or could not be believed depending on the audience's views.

Obviously my posts are more political than theocratic. But who cares?

[Geoff332]

The Jewish holy books centre around the Torah -- which is effectively the first five books of the bible, and the subsequent prohetic works (basically the old testement; but the way it is read is a little different). Given that the Bible usually refers to the Old and New testaments, it's not really accuate to say that there is a Jewish 'version'. The Bible incorporates (and, according to Christian belief, extends) Jewish holy books.

Jesus is not regarded as a prophet within Jewish belief -- Islam is the primary religion that considers Jesus a prophet, rather than the messiah. Jewish teaching on Jesus varies quite widely -- as I said, the Messianic Jews do believe that Jesus was Christ; mainstream Jewish belief is that he is not. The basic problem is the ressurection. The messiah does not die. Jewish belief is that the person of Jesus was executed and that was that. Christian belief is that he was executed and then raised from the dead -- fulfilling the messianic prophecies from the OT. There is a strong view of Jesus that he was a false messiah -- changing the law and misleading people.

Technically, OT law is Jewish law. There are different interpretations on this -- Orthodox Jews follow it far more closely than non-orthodox. There are a lot of different streams of Judeaism that I don't know much about and they vary in their interpretation and enactment of Jewish law.

[[ÄK]LËGÖLÄS]

Originally posted by Gregory@Sep 11 2003, 08:23 PM i have a question: according to the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible, basically), Each time a Jew sins, he or she must sacrifice a lamb or similar animal. they don't. they couldnt anyway, its against the law. so ummm.... how are your sins forgiven if you're a jew?

yeah that's kinda like my question
why aren't they doing all the things the old testament commands?

[Geoff332]

For exactly the same reasons Christan's are not acting the same way as they were 500 years ago. Society has changed and the expression of religion in society has also changed. This doesn't mean that either the religion or the nature of the people of the religion have changed.

An analogy can be seen in looking through a coloured lens. What you are looking at won't have changed, but what you see has changed. In the same way, society forms a filter for how we see the tennents of our religion (or whatever metaphysical perspective you substitute for religion).

In the case of sacrifices, orthodox teaching is that sacrifices require the Temple. Without the Temple, there are no sacrifices. Some Orthodox Jews teach that prayer is a substitute for sacrifices, until the Temple is rebuilt. Both prayer and sacrifice are seen as ways of approaching God.

If you want to argue a specific tennant of judaic law, then give us the scripture and we can look at how it can be interpreted. Other than that, the answer I've given is the best one I can give.

[Fallen Angel]

Why are Jews always rich?
Because there smart, they use their heads with finance and don't take dumb risks, I don't think there much into gambling either which helps over the longrun,I have never had a bad thing to say about Jewish people, they are a peace loving race that has now got to as always, fight for its own survival against the stupid Moslems(fanatics, of course.)

[G. Adams]

Hey hey, if the british took away your territory and gave it to another people you'd be pissed too. And it seems people have a short memory on Jewish terrorism too, Zionist organisations assassinated british politicians in order to fight for a new israel.

[[ÄK]LËGÖLÄS]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Sep 12 2003, 08:09 AM Hey hey, if the british took away your territory and gave it to another people you'd be pissed too. And it seems people have a short memory on Jewish terrorism too, Zionist organisations assassinated british politicians in order to fight for a new israel.

if i was Osama bin Laden i would go after the british. Crash a plane into buckinham palace.

[RebelWithanAK]

Actually I think it was the Assyrians who first took the land away from the Israelis. And the Babylonians the Judans.

Why are Jews always rich?

They aren't. They just have dominated certain industries, like every culture does.

[Pooeypants]

Doesn't the Jews believe that their Messiah was more of a miltary figure (at the time of Roman occuption) who would lead them to victory over their enemies and bring a thousand year of peace to land of what is now Israel. Which didn't happen hence Jesus was not the Messiah to the Jews. Simple take on the view not complete at all but its all I knew.

[[ÄK]LËGÖLÄS]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Sep 12 2003, 02:16 PM Doesn't the Jews believe that their Messiah was more of a miltary figure (at the time of Roman occuption) who would lead them to victory over their enemies and bring a thousand year of peace to land of what is now Israel. Which didn't happen hence Jesus was not the Messiah to the Jews. Simple take on the view not complete at all but its all I knew.

yes you are right

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

A good artical about where the land came from, among other things...

Tip #1 – Imagine that the Palestinians are fighting for a homeland that was taken away from them by the evil Jews. That’s right. The foundation to becoming and remaining a faithful pro-Arafat enthusiast is to intoxicate yourself with the belief that the Palestinians actually once owned a homeland that was, in turn, stolen by the greedy and parasitic Jews. While trying to convince yourself of this fantasy, ignore the historical fact that the Palestine Mandate was never a nation, let alone even a political entity of any kind. It was a "mandate" that was created by the British from the remnants of the Turkish Empire after World War I. 10% of it was given to the Jews and 90% was given to the Palestinian Arabs. The key here is that you should never worry about where 90% of Palestine actually is. Just obsess with the miniscule tiny bit of land that the Israelis "occupy" now. It’s not important that this land was never officially "owned" by anyone in the first place. You should also never reflect on whether all of your rage and hatred on this issue is proportional to the fact that Israel consists of 1% of the land in the Middle East. Just get really angry that Israel is on territory that you think should be given to the Palestinians. And because you think this, then it automatically makes it right and historically correct. You should never wonder how your moral indignation on this issue fits with your complete indifference to the fact that Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate. So if you really cared about the Palestinians, you would obviously be focusing your energy on protesting the crime being perpetrated by the Jordanians against the Palestinians. But the key here is that, well, deep down, you don’t really care about the Palestinians -– and neither should you. You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started. That’s right. You know what I’m talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don’t you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don’t you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement? Don’t you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state? You’re starting to get the picture now, right? So be a smart and clever Arafat apologist. The overall objective of your life should be facilitating the killing of Jews and destroying the state of Israel. The last thing you should be doing is worrying about the Palestinians. At the same time, however, in terms of what you actually say in public, you must always discuss the Middle East "problem" on the assumption that you are agonizing over the Palestinians’ plight and how their entire "homeland" somehow lies in tiny little Israel. It is also a very good idea that you always refer to the myth of how the Jews "stole" the Palestinian "homeland" in passing, because then it makes its reality appear to be a given. You can’t believe how effective this ploy can be, especially in the midst of people who know nothing about Middle East history.

[Geoff332]

Nice, but historically inaccurate.

The 1947 UN Resolution (the famous resolution 142) that is the most relevant one starting point for Israel and Palestine. The two nations were put on equal footing and given land to both parties, as well as the right to self-determination and a bunch of other things. In a series of wars (which Israel didn't start), Israel has occupied land, evicted Palestinians and moved them into refugee camps. That is why everyone refers to the area as Israel and the Occupied Territories. Numerous UN Resolutions have since insisted that Israel leave -- which they have ignored.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by [ÄK]LËGÖLÄS@Sep 12 2003, 10:10 AM if i was Osama bin Laden i would go after the british. Crash a plane into buckinham palace.

Well he'd have my support if he did crash it into the royal family.

Nobody refers to it as "Israel and Occupied Territories", just as nobody refers to Rhode Island as "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". Politically correct or not.

[RebelWithanAK]

I've heard it referred to as Israel and the occupied territories. Hell, even Sharon admitted they were occupied territories. Every news story I've read on the issue referred to occupied territories - even those sympathetic to Sharon. Just Google or Lexis-Nexis it, and see. Where have YOU been?