Harry's Place

Hang on, I thought the extreme left were all atheists. Religion as the ‘opium of the people’, and all that. Why blame the Jews for killing someone who never existed?

that cartoon’s a bit sick but hardly surprising coming from the SWP, with their shift to the far right continuing, but expect a disclaimer shortly from them:

“hey, we haven’t read much on antisemitic imagery or history so didn’t see the connection, where’s Mike Rosen? he’ll apologise for us”

Atzmon will probably changed the text on his web page, it is his habit when faced with criticism, to deflect the issue

Mike Rosen isn’t really that keen on apologising for the SWP these days.

this is appalling stuff! Cant quite believe the same organisation that helped build the wonderful ANL in the 70s is now publishing anti-semitic filth like this in its rag of a newspaper! How long before they join their friends in the iranian regime in publishing articles denying the holocaust?

also can someone tell the ignorant anti-semitic bigots at SW that crucifixion was A ROMAN METHOD OF EXECUTION!!!!!

indeed David T,

I almost feel sorry for Mike Rosen, the SWP leadership has cynically used and abused his trust, deep down I think he’s a bit of a tortured soul (as with many poets) and altho misguided, a decent person

I hope Mike Rosen sits back and re-evaluates the implication of his previous views and support for the SWP

Michael Rosen brings pleasure and education to millions through his broadcasting whilst the anonymous “Modernity Blog” (who he?) whines on about the SWP, makes patronising comments about Rosen, and comes out with some tired old cliched nonsense about poets being “tortured souls”. Lord give me strength.

It is kind of absurd to call Jesus a ‘Palestinian Jew’, unless one believes that the eternal and somehow naturally just name of the country in question is ‘Palestine’. I doubt that this is David T’s position. It’s an absurd one.

Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was a native of what was then called the Roman province of Judea. This was a quite uncontroversial name at the time. (EG Pliny the elder: “Jerusalem, by far the most illustrious city of the East, not merely of Judea.”

In general I have no objecting to my lefty friends paying their token homages to the god of political correctness. I think that Harry’s Place and Engage, for example, do important work in arguing with people whom I personally hold in too deep contempt to bother with.

But historical fact is historical fact. The country was renamed Syria Palestina by Hadrian after the Bar-Kokhba revolt in 135. When Jesus was around, the country was called Judea. So your man was a Judean. If calling him a ‘Judean Jew’ – which is an absurdity, as ‘Jew’ means ‘Judean’ anyway – would cause some of the people you want to reach to throw up their hands in horror, then that in itself is interesting. It doesnt justify distorting the facts to ‘meet them halfway’, however.

See link for further info:

http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html

A friend of mine had a new girlfriend who was Jewish, and he took her to the North-West to meet his grandma. Just before they met he told his grandma she was Jewish and she said, ‘Aren’t they the ones who killed Jesus’? I think they still met though.

I always remember the story when I drive up Finchley Road, which has an organisation called ‘Jews for Jesus’. I don’t know what they do.

Paul F:

You’re reading a piece by Atzmon, not me.

Matthew:

Jews for Jesus are a little bit like the Lubavitch.

David T – I humbly ask your pardon. I hereby vow always to read the whole passage before jumping in.

wrongful accusations aside, the rest of my contribution is hopefully relevant and of interest.

Many people around the world regarded the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem
as an attempt to kill Jesus ‘again’.)

Just to set the record straight, it was the occupation of The Church of the Nativity by urinating Islamist thugs and NOT the Israeli siege of said church that upset Christians worldwide.

Are the folks at SWP aware that Israel’s Christian community has grown by 270% since 1948 whereas that of the “occupied” territories has drastically declined?

Who are these twats attempting to fool?

It’s not as if Christians don’t know which side of the bread sports the butter.

As for Jews being upset when asked who killed Jesus? Well, I get very upset too when people accuse me of something I haven’t done.

Especially if they’d been blaming me for 2000 years.

Which brings me to a question: How can the SWP and Islamist allies blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, when Islam’s core claim…. and Mohammed’s Abrahamic meal-ticket….. is the iron-clad assertion that Jesus was NEVER crucified?

Will Muslims willingly deny their own theology, will they deny the Abrahamic claims of their own *prophet*, thereby putting their ‘deen’ at risk, if that denial affords them the opportunity to pin the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews?

You betcha, baby!

Christian, and Islamic, including Palestinian Arab Christian and Islamic, tradition is not only that the Jews crucified or rejected Jesus, but that they were dispossessed of temple, city and land, by g-d, through Rome, the original western European colonial empire, as a punishment.

In fact, following the suppression of the second Jewish revolt, Rome created the province of Syria Palaestina, whence ‘Palestine’, in place of Iudaea, to alienate the Jews from their land forever.

Zionism is predicated on the notion (shared with Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims for most of Palestinian Arab Christian and Islamic history) that the Jews are a nation in exile and dispossessed.

Jews for Jesus are a little bit like the Lubavitch.

With the stress on the word “little”.

“Michael Rosen brings pleasure and education to millions through his broadcasting”

This seems a bit far-fetched.

The accusation of Jews killing Jesus, “the first Palestinian” comes from the 80s, after Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem, and originated from within a PLO Christian group. I don’t have the source with me right now, but I remember reading about it.

Cant quite believe the same organisation that helped build the wonderful ANL in the 70s is now publishing anti-semitic filth like this in its rag of a newspaper!

This one confused me too. It is actually only the cartoon that appeared in the newspaper; the text is from Gilad Atzmon’s web site.

Anyone who says “Jesus was a Palestinian” is quite clearly a freak and/or uninterested in truth and/or just given to drawing attention to themselves. Full stop.

(Maybe they will get round to rewriting some Christmas carols though to include the P-word – although I’m not sure it will rhyme with “Emmanuel” as well as does “Israel”)

Joking aside, this is absolutely disgusting and rather shocking. Although the flirtation (and more) with Islamist antisemitism of the SWP does not really surprise me (misguided post-colonial guilt and all that), the adoption by someone assocaited with them of an extremely traditional and long-established Christian antisemitic motif -which in most countries is assocaited with the very traditionalist Roman Catholic far-right- is almost beyond credulity.

(Perhaps Atzmon will start referring to England as “the Dowry of Mary” next, which is at least harmless and poetic, although perhaps retrograde from the p.o.v of sexual equality. SWP novenas, anyone?)

I am genuinely shocked by this. Although I hope I am right to presume that even “Socialist Worker” wouldn’t publish this filth spouted by Atzmon above, or would they?

This one confused me too. It is actually only the cartoon that appeared in the newspaper; the text is from Gilad Atzmon’s web site.

Must admit I got confused by that too. I toned down my comment a bit when I realised that SW weren’t as deep in the shit as the presentation might at first seem to imply

Like the SWP are followers of Jesus … Not!

I am reminded of Damien Day (of Drop the Dead Donkey) and his little travelling reporters kit, featuring the blood stained teddy bear. Jesus had the words for such people: “Woe unto ye, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites”.

I am genuinely shocked by this. Although I hope I am right to presume that even “Socialist Worker” wouldn’t publish this filth spouted by Atzmon above, or would they?

They aren’t exactly going to great lengths to distance themselves from Atzmon.

Lord give me strength.

Try switching hands.

As for the cartoon, a very similar one in intent appeared in the latest Private Eye, with the three wise men the target and the “joke” spread out over two panels.

“brings pleasure and education to millions”
Benjamins praise is more dreaded than
his criticism.

Lord give me strength.

You’de be better of asking for some sense Benji…

I fear my barb is somewhat blunted by my illiteracy.

Oh well.

Maybe they will get round to rewriting some Christmas carols…

I’m quite happy with “Once in royal David’s city…”

I’m guessing modern Italians aren’t very sensitive to being accused of murdering jesus because it hasn’t been the traditional preamble to anti-italian persecution.

I think Leigh sort of beat me to it, but still worth stating that I found a distinct sense of similarity of tone between this article and the Holocuast Denial Conference promo. stuff coming out of Iran.

BTW, how were your SWP comrades when you guys marched with them “against fascism” on Saturday?

Was “Concentration Camp” Ken at the head of it, I wonder?

Small point here. The Romans crucified Jesus. Their agency was direct, the agency of the Jewish elite (according to some versions of the New Testament) was indirect.

Sound familiar?

As for the cartoon, a very similar one in intent appeared in the latest Private Eye, with the three wise men the target and the “joke” spread out over two panels. – dirigible

Jimmy Carr (not Carter) had summat like “These days if you follow a bright light in the sky it’s a scud missile hitting a Palestinian Hospital.” Somehow the fact that he said “scud” actually makes it alright I think…

Small point here. The Romans crucified Jesus. Their agency was direct, the agency of the Jewish elite (according to some versions of the New Testament) was indirect.

Weren’t the Roman’s Jewish? And wasn’t Jesus given up by his Jewish pals given that Jesus was Jewish himself? I don’t know why Jews are always so ashamed of killing Jesus; it’s well known that Jews don’t believe in Jesus, so why do they go out of their way to say they had nothing to do with it, as if Jesus really was the son of god?

Ouch, a damn egg shell has cut my foot.

I’ve missed Ant.

How are ya, ya cheeky racist anti-semite you?

I think that the most likely explanation is that the author of this piece of ineloquence is either in urgent need of psychedelic drugs to resync with the rest of the planet, or, needs to stop taking them in order to facilitate a return to reality.

Far out man.

But the Romans were Jewish at that point!

David T

didn’t the Jews kill Jesus? In any case, who cares? And why is it offensive to you? But since you care so much, maybe we could have a conference…What do you say?

Conference on Whether Jews Killed Jesus.

when we are done with that, we can confer on whether the fact that Jesus was a Jew has any significance.

Oh, I don’t care if Jesus is considered a god by Christians. According to the same Christians, this was the Plan. So the Jews, Judas and Jesus were following a Master Plan.

In fact, if I were a Christian, i’d be happy that it was the Jews that killed him, because they were worthy enough to play a part in God’s plan.

In fact, according to the most extreme righ-wing Christians in the US who support Israel without question because it is helping bring about the New Jerusalem, ALL Christians should be happy about Jesus being killed by Jews.

So, what’s the problem?

Chris

http://www.yioni.com/2006/12/history-of-future-middle-east.html

After that, let’s have a conference about whether Mike’s mum was a whore. What? That’s not offensive, it’s just freedom of speech. The term antimichaelism is bandied about far to much.

If I am not mistaken, the Greeks killed lots of Jews, who in turn where part of the Master Plan, while the Greeks weren’t. Chris is a Greek, therefore he is evil, and lives in the Hellenist Entity.

Let’s have a conference, funded by the UN where we will discuss the evil Greece right to exist.

What is the problem with that?

Chris is a Hellenist who has grown fat on the land stolen from the Turkish People

Recently I had a small shaving accident. I clipped the moustache of my beard a bit more than I should have. I use electric clippers and it’s easy to have such accidents. In any case, I thought this would be a good opportunity for a little variety. So I trimmed the whole moustache to make it look even. The unintended effect was that I looked like an observant Muslim with a beard and a trimmed moustache.

The very next day I had to fly. It was the first time I felt what it means to be ‘profiled’. Funny enough, airport personnel were pretty careful about how they treated me. Some seemed to actually avoid looking at me. I was rather surprised with the put on ‘lack of interest’.

http://www.yioni.com/

You should all read this guy, he’s hilarious. Sometimes even deliberately. And he may be the most modest man to post to HP since Kammo.

Small point here. The Romans crucified Jesus. Their agency was direct, the agency of the Jewish elite (according to some versions of the New Testament) was indirect.

Weren’t the Roman’s Jewish? And wasn’t Jesus given up by his Jewish pals given that Jesus was Jewish himself? I don’t know why Jews are always so ashamed of killing Jesus; it’s well known that Jews don’t believe in Jesus, so why do they go out of their way to say they had nothing to do with it, as if Jesus really was the son of god?

Ouch, a damn egg shell has cut my foot.

If I remember correctly though this Talmudic account would have been written some centuries after the event (though before Christianity became a major religion), and might therefore possibly be no more likely to be accurate than the gospels (or Josephus for that matter).

I thought the Jewish Talmud code word for Jesus was “Balamm”?

Byzer,

thank you for your sensible post!

By the way, as a philosopher, I accuse the Greeks of having killed someone I worship: Socrates.

Hmmm…I should join up with David T and his co-conspirators against the Greeks. Maybe if I shout “The Greeks Killed Socrates” in some graduate faculty, the mob will kill any Greek students around…

David, you can say anything you like. I find you extremely amusing. I think that all racists, like yourself for example, can be dealt with humour, ridicule and in the end, by shunning you.

For now, I am at the humour stage. But if you persist, I will eventually shun you, because you are proving to be incapable of dialogue.

By the way, is it true that refusing to acknowledge someone is the worst thing to do to a Jew. This was told to me by my professor in Jewish philosophy, Joseph Agassi, an excellent teacher.

Fabian from Israel,

a lot of people killed a lot of Jews from all over Europe during WW2. In Greece, quite a few people also risked their life to save Jews. I have accompanied Rmanic Jews from New York on a tour of Giannena, and been in their Synagogue there and seen the emotion that overcame them when they came upon the name of a lost ancestor, or even when an old bond between families was discovered. I also felt quite proud to stand with them by the memorial commemorating the deportation of the Jews.

The sad part is that there are only few Jews left in Greece. Where once there were thriving communities, now there are dying ones. In Giannena there are less than 120 left, mostly older people.

Chris Voidis

But if you persist, I will eventually shun you, because you are proving to be incapable of dialogue.

This is what I mean by his modesty. He will shun David by no longer deigning to comment on David’s blog.

Montaq,

It was David who initiated a dialogue with me when he sent me his post to my email.

I am someone who apreciates dialogue and would be willing to talk with anyone, even if they were trying to make a point by same something as ridiculous as what he said in his post.

So, I don’t know what this has to do with modesty. I never insulted him, yet he persists in insulting me. Is he interested in dialogue or not?

If David is interested only in insults, then I am afraid that he will not find a partner in that with me…

Sorry…

Chris Voidis

btw, did the SWP’s John Rees stop off in Tehran on his way to Beirut? or is he intending to go there later?

It was David who initiated a dialogue with me when he sent me his post to my email.

Fair enough, Chris. No (serious) offence intended on my part :)

“Montaq”

Having seen this some 1000 times in the last month, I have to ask — has anybody here actually read Fahrenheit 451??? No wonder that rich fat Manhattan faker got away with his poxy film.

Gilad is a wannabe intellectual and apparently a theologian at that.
He talks bullshit…. if Jesuit theologians recognise the appalling repercussions of Christianity blaming the Jews for the death of Christ and it’s connections to programs and the holocaust, how come he thinks he knows better?Is he an expert on Christian theology now along with being the spiritual leader of an anti-Semitic, demonising, racist- Scottish PSC? He may have followers amongst the blind, terrorist admiring- idiots of the Scottish PSC who can’t see further than their noses as long as it causes a sensation and demonises the scapegoat, but he’s an imbecile to me.

Chris

As long as you’re with me in calling for the recreation of a democratic pluralist Caliphate, which will incorporate the whole of the Hellenist Entitity, I think we can work together

David T,

funny enough, when I was in university I had proposed that. At that time I think I was the only one at that institute among the Greek students who recognized the pluralist nature of the Ottoman Empire.

In any case, I am certainly not a nationalist. With your logic, then one could ask for the recreation of Alexander’s empire. And hey, maybe Ahmedinejad just want the Persian Empire back…

What do you say?

Chris

The History of the Future in the Middle East

Just to set the record straight, it was the occupation of The Church of the Nativity by urinating Islamist thugs and NOT the Israeli siege of said church that upset Christians worldwide.

No John, the photograph of the statue of Mary riddled with bullet holes caused Christians some distress also.

No John, the photograph of the statue of Mary riddled with bullet holes caused Christians some distress also.

Can you provide a link to said photograph? The BBC report mentioned only one bullet.

I think that me and non-nationalist, non-antisemitic Chris have agreed that he will now devote his blog to the destruction of Greece instead of (wickedly for someone who is beneffiting from the genocide of the Turks) to the destruction of Israel.

I don’t know why you changed at the university Chris. Could it be because being an anti-Zionist was easier than being an anti-Hellenist? Now is your opportunity to rectify your error and join an anti-Hellenist movement. I bet the Arabs are funding lots of them.

Hi Gene,

I can’t provide a link, however I can send you it if you like, I took it from the AP newswire at the time. There is substantial damage to the statue, including the loss of both hands and her nose. Having said that, I never saw what state the statue was in prior to the siege.

Israel does bomb civilian targets all over the middle east (remember quana)

I do not see how pointing that out is anti-semitic.

Why is everyone wasting so much time discussing whether the Jews were or were not responsible for Jesus’s crucifiction? Christ’s very existence is a work of fiction, utterly without any historical basis.

If you’re a committed Christian, then it’s understandable that you would wish to interpret The New Testament according to your taste. However, it never ceases to amaze me how many atheists and Jews I know never question whether Jesus ever actually lived.

A cursory reading of The New Testament makes it clear that the Jews are guilty of deicide. Thankfully, nowadays, your more liberal Christian is taught that contemporary Jews are not responsible for the sins of their forefathers, or even that the Romans bore primary responsibility. This is good news for Jews, but it’s still a tendentious reading of an antisemitic diatribe.

All this debate makes as much sense as discussing whether Jews are in fact the decendents of pigs and apes, as stated in the Koran. By accepting the premise of the argument (that somebody was responsible for killing Jesus), you invite the response that it was indeed the Jews.

The Talmudic version of the life of Jesus is a clearly a Jewish revision, designed to cast Christ as a bastard. Whether an attack on a competing religion or a response to persecution, it’s an understandable reaction; however, it’s still predicated on the erroneous notion that Jesus did exist and that Joseph was not the father.

Byzer: Josephus was born after Jesus was supposed to have died, and so could not be considered a witness. More importantly, reference in his writings to Jesus have now been discredited as an obvious interpolation.

Can anyone point to a quote from any organisation that claims that Jewish people killed jesus in the manger?

Thought not.

Sonic: Israel does bomb civilian targets all over the middle east (remember quana)

I do not see how pointing that out is anti-semitic.

Do you have evidence that Israel was targetting civilians in Qana? Lying about Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, but then, neither is denying the holocaust necessarily so. In your defence, Sonic, I will say that your mendacity is universal, and not restricted to Jewish-related matters.

“Do you have evidence that Israel was targetting civilians in Qana”

The main evidence would be the 50 dead bodies.

Why is everyone wasting so much time discussing whether the Jews were or were not responsible for Jesus’s crucifiction? Christ’s very existence is a work of fiction, utterly without any historical basis.

The Talmudic version of the life of Jesus is a clearly a Jewish revision, designed to cast Christ as a bastard. Whether an attack on a competing religion or a response to persecution, it’s an understandable reaction; however, it’s still predicated on the erroneous notion that Jesus did exist and that Joseph was not the father.

Byzer: Josephus was born after Jesus was supposed to have died, and so could not be considered a witness.

A rather typical historian in other words.

Sorry, having html issues. The above post should have read:

Sonic: Israel does bomb civilian targets all over the middle east (remember quana)

I do not see how pointing that out is anti-semitic.

Do you have evidence that Israel was targetting civilians in Qana? Lying about Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, but then, neither is denying the holocaust necessarily so. In your defence, Sonic, I will say that your mendacity is universal, and not restricted to Jewish-related matters.

The main evidence would be the 50 dead bodies.

28 bodies according to the Red Cross. Old news, Subsonic — and your comment hardly refutes the charge of mendacity.

So you got in your TARDIS and visited the guy who wrote it and he told you he made it up did you?

Why don’t you just be honest and say that you don’t know, because the reality is, you don’t.

All those dead children are “Old news”?

Tells me all I need to know about you mate.

So, Sonic, you didn’t answer before. Do you condemn what the Editor in Chief of Al Jazeera said about Israel? And do you understand what was wrong with that statement?

Fabian from Israel:

Why don’t you answer my previous post to you rather than take up Davi T’s cause?

It really bothers you when someone can both question Israeli policy and not be anti-Semitic, doesn’t it?

Oh well, poor fellows are like that…

Chris Voidis

Hmmmm…this thing is slowly becoming surreal. What is the future of the Middle East. We also have to consider the fact that israel has confirmed it is a nuclear state, while Iran is close to acquiring the technology to be one…

Here is a peek:

http://www.yioni.com/2006/12/history-of-future-middle-east.html...

Chris Voidis

“Do you condemn what the Editor in Chief of Al Jazeera said about Israel”

And that is more important that a lot of dead arab children?

Tell you what Faibian, point me to where you “condemned” the deaths of Lebanese civilains this year and I’ll have a think about it.

Gene -

Can you provide a link to said photograph? The BBC report mentioned only one bullet.

You can now view it here;

http://watchingtheoccupation.blogspot.com/

As if you cared about the Lebanese, you idiot! Hezbollah is organizing a coup d’etat with the help of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships and you applaud it! You hypocrite!

Well that was a ringing condemnation there Fabian I think I’ll nominate you for humanitarian of the year.

But seriously folks, why is it that as soon as you mention the fact that Israel blew away over 1000 Lebanese civilians earlier this year (hence the cartoon we are discussing) people like Fabian try everything they can to change the subject?

I suppose they know that they cannot defend what was done in their name.

Sonic: the two things are not equal. For while it is a tragedy that those Arab children are dead, they were not purposedly murdered by Israel, and everything you may say to the contrary is a lie. In a war, sometimes innocents, by accident, die. That is a fact. And Hezbollah ensured that this will happen. So, you should look at each case specificly and then investigate if the Israeli soldier who fired made a mistake.

But you assume that Israel wanted to kill those children. By implication, you agree with the idiot at Al Jazeera that blames every Arab problem on Israel. He is an idiot, you are scum.

The deaths of 1000+ civilians was just a long series of unfortunate accidents

The pilots who dropped the bombs onto apartment blocks, villages and even US peacekeeping forces just made a lot of mistakes.

We should blame the children for having the temerity to sit air raid shelters that they knew Israel might be bombing, in fact it was their own fault they are dead, in fact the probably killed themselves just to make Israel look bad.

Anyone who says anything different is an evil anti-semite.

You are a real Hezbollah guy, Sonic. Heil Nasrallah!

Fabian is. Of course, right as ever. Anyone who mentions the fact that Israel kills civilians Must be a nazi. After all civilians in question are merely arabs, and not proper human beings like us.

The Germans have a great word for it, Übermensch.

Blah, blah sonic. As always you have not answered the questions asked. Not that I really care now. What a waste of time.

Hezbollah, if I am not mistaken, was created after 1982 to fight the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. As such, it constitutes a popular resistance. There are still outstanding issues with Israel, therefore the Hezbollah continues to resist Israeli aggression in south Lebanon.

Of course, any resistance to Israeli aggression must be terrorism. Only when Israelis blow up people, or assassinate Lebanese leaders, is it legitimate and for a gpood cause, as when Jews blew up the King David Hotel 60 years ago and killed dozens of people, mostly civilians…

(I would have said Israelis, but Israel did not exist then.)

Hmmmm…this thing is slowly becoming surreal. What is the future of the Middle East. We also have to consider the fact that Israel has confirmed it is a nuclear state, while Iran is close to acquiring the technology to be one…

Here is a peek:

http://www.yioni.com/2006/12/history-of-future-middle-east.html

Chris Voidis

Which question was that, the one were you were using to try and change the subject from the casualties of Israel’s air force? or the question you were using to desperately try and change the subject of civilian deaths in lebanon?

So you got in your TARDIS and visited the guy who wrote it and he told you he made it up did you?

No, that was just a bit of deductive reasoning. If one holds that Jesus existed and that he was not his mother’s husband’s son, but one rejects parthenogenesis, it’s easy to see how, in conjunction with an understandable hostility towards Christianity, Judaism might have been attracted to a narrative that cast Jesus as a bastard.

A rather typical historian in other words.

Yes, a historian – not a witness. The relevance of Josephus is that he is the earliest non-Christian source to refer to Jesus. There is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus’s existence, which is why some Christian scholars put so much emphasis on Josephus’s testimony. It is worth reminding people that he was a historian, not a witness – thank you for doing so. Jesus had no witnesses.

The more substantive point was that his passages about Jesus are interpolations: fraudulent additions from around the fourth century.

The existence of an historical Jesus is perfectly sensible, as is the case for Muhammed or Moses. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

What about the following? The existence of an historical Hercules is perfectly sensible. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

Rubbish. Believing Jesus existed, without any evidence that he did, is silly. Discussing what he may or may not have done is plain ludicrous.

What little evidence there is of Jesus’s existence has been discredited. There is plenty of geographical, textual and circumstantial evidence contradicting the New Testament to suggest it unlikely he existed.

Why don’t you just be honest and say that you don’t know, because the reality is, you don’t.

I don’t know.

None of the above precludes the possibility of Jesus’s existence. You can’t prove a negative, as they say. By the same token, I ask you whether goblins exist. I don’t know the answer to that either.

The point I was trying to make is not that there is proof that Jesus did not exist. I was appealing to the agnostics and atheists here who have a tendency to argue on the basis of Christian premises. If you have always assumed that Jesus was a great but misinterpreted philosopher, perhaps it’s time you did a little research.

Here’s another nugget: Nazareth didn’t exist.

You can now view it here

According to Al-Ahram, the statue depicted in the photo is near the French hospital in Bethlehem, and not the one at the church referred to by the BBC. Personally I’m not prepared to take Al-Ahram’s word that Israelis alone were responsible for the damage.

BTW

Welcome back Gene, good to see you.

The cartoon is absurd on any number of levels, not least because it depicts the Israelis as bombing a Jewish carpenter and his family. Such folks tend to be the desired targets not of Israel but of other people….

Which question was that

I have a question for you, Sonic. Recently some Palestinians formed a “human shield” around the home of a Hamas terrorist. The IDF aborted an air strike on the home rather than kill those civilians.

Now, if some Israeli civilians formed a “human shield” around a Tel Aviv pizza restaurant, would that (a) dissuade or (b) encourage a Palestinian suicide bomber to attack it?

Please try very, very hard to answer just (a) or (b), Sonic.

Fair enough Gene. I don’t think it’s the one referred to by the BBC either. But then I never said it was.

Personally I’m not prepared to take Al-Ahram’s word that Israelis alone were responsible for the damage.

Why would you? In this conflict both sides just believe what they want to don’t they?

Montag joins the “lets change the subject from the actual fact that Israel killed 1000+ civilians this year to some fantasy of my own making”

400 dead Palestinians in Gaza in the last tree months, but Montag isn’t interested in that it seems.

So you got in your TARDIS and visited the guy who wrote it and he told you he made it up did you?

No, that was just a bit of deductive reasoning. If one holds that Jesus existed and that he was not his mother’s husband’s son, but one rejects parthenogenesis, it’s easy to see how, in conjunction with an understandable hostility towards Christianity, Judaism might have been attracted to a narrative that cast Jesus as a bastard.

A rather typical historian in other words.

The more substantive point was that his passages about Jesus are interpolations: fraudulent additions from around the fourth century.

The existence of an historical Jesus is perfectly sensible, as is the case for Muhammed or Moses. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

What about the following? The existence of an historical Hercules is perfectly sensible. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

Rubbish. Believing Jesus existed, without any evidence that he did, is silly.

Discussing what he may or may not have done is plain ludicrous.

What little evidence there is of Jesus’s existence has been discredited.

So we go from “no evidence” to “little evidence”. Why should I take you seriously?

Ant

No, the Jews didn’t kill Jesus. They got the Romans to do it for them, just as today they get the Americans to kill Arabs for them

The biggest killers of Arabs are other Arabs. No outside help required

Only when Israelis blow up people, or assassinate Lebanese leaders, is it legitimate and for a gpood cause, as when Jews blew up the King David Hotel 60 years ago and killed dozens of people, mostly civilians…

Oh Chris, You have fallen for the propeganda line 24, page 1 of the PLO/Hamas book of propeganda.

1)King David Hotel was British military HQ, making it a military not a civilian target.

2) Clear warning was given about the bomb, and ample time allowed fo the building to evacuated.

3) British military authority ignored the warning, to their detriment and the detriment of all those who died or were maimed.

Context is everything. Like the fact that Hizbollahroutinly hid weapons dumps in civilian buildings, and fired missiles from close proximity to civilian structures. That the specific building in Qana was targeted BECAUSE it was being used in just such a way. AND that Israel leafleted the area specifying that THAT BUILDING was being targeted.

The deaths were unfortunate, but were not the intention of Israel. Hizbollahs recklessness was the precipitating factor in their death

What about the following? The existence of an historical Hercules is perfectly sensible. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

Not as verifiable, and not comparable, but in actual fact IMO Hercules is actually more likely to be based on a once living man than not. Though as I say, it’s not a reasonable comparison.

You also IMO picked a particularly bad example from Greek mythology to make this point. Of all the Greek gods it is probably easiest to make the case that Hercules is based on an historical person.

Sonic,

The problem you have is that you simply cannot recognise that Israel’s actions do NOT happen in a vacuume.

Do you think that if the Palestinians had not actually engaged in acts of war against Israel AFTER Israels withdrawal from Gaza that Israel would have had no reason to intervene again in Gaza?

Oh and Chris, One could also argue that the Mexicans have outstanding claims against the US, this still would not justify Mexican incursions into Texas.

FACT is FACT, Israel withdrew to the internationally recognised border of Lebanon. In further actions from inside Lebaneses territories against Israel are acts of Belligerencey and Causus Belle. Furhter It is the Govt. of Lebanon responsibility to act on behalf of the Lebabnese people, not some private proxy army. Hizbollah is not a disputant between Israel and Lebanon, they are nothing more thatn agent prevocotors.

Joe is satire, right?

Joe:

Obviously the Israelis are ignoring warnings to vacate, so the suicide bombers are justified…

Is this a serious line of argument? The Hizbullah attacked the IDF on July 12th and fired a few rockets as a diversion (no injuries from that). So why did Israel respond by bombing Beirut.

I am sure you will have the appropriate answers that justify anything Israel does in the name of its ’security’…

answer just (a) or (b), Sonic.

?

Joe:

as for the Mexicans, they are slowly reclaiming Texas, New Mexico and California. They have also set their eye on Florida too…

Montag, this is not a courtroom and you are not Petrocelli.

So save the dumb questions for someone who cares.

xxx

S

Chris,

Israel did not bomb beirut, per say, the bomb Hizbollah. Bombings WERE restricted to areas where Hizbollah had entrenched their politcal and military infrastructure inside civilian areas without clearly distinguishing between any of the three.

As one New Yorker commentator put it, if Hizbollah puts their offices on the second floor of an apartment building, it should surprise noone that that apartment building is bomb.

Sonic,

Great rejoinder

Obviously the Israelis are ignoring warnings to vacate, so the suicide bombers are justified…

You are a complete and utter cunt. You are scum.

Morgoth:

you should read the threads. Then you would have understood the context of what I was saying.

As for being a ‘cunt’, then I am proud to be one. I actually worship ‘cunts’. I find nothing disrespectful about them and I am certainly not offended by your remark. In fact, I am honoured.

Montag, this is not a courtroom and you are not Petrocelli.

I prefer Barry Newman in Vanishing Point, Sonic — although that film’s title and ending would suit you just as well.

Joe,

Hizbullah has all kinds of offices everywhere. It runs hospitals, social welfare programs, you name it. Does that justify bombing all these places because they are run by Hizbullah? And yet the Israelis did.

Let’s face it. If Hizbullah are criminal, then so are the Israelis.

” puts their offices on the second floor of an apartment building, it should surprise noone that that apartment building is bomb.”

Is that a quote from Bin Laden re 9-11?

Chris,

Only if Israel is in the Habit of using hospitals and schools, civilian apartment buildings etc as aresenals and military “safe Havens” from which to intiate attacks!

Your lack of nuance betrays you

Oh Sonic, you are so smart. It is amazing that your mommy lets you out of th play pen.

Utter filth. It was Hezbollah, not Israel which fired on Nazareth. During Operation Summer Rain, what I’d thought was an easy going site, Ship of Fools, ran a headline “Crucifixion of Gaza”.

Dickheads.

Joe,

Hizbullah has all kinds of offices everywhere. It runs hospitals, social welfare programs, you name it. Does that justify bombing all these places because they are run by Hizbullah? And yet the Israelis did.

Let’s face it. If Hizbullah are criminal, then so are the Israelis.

Israel has military facilities in it’s cities, does that mean you all think Hezbollah’s rocket attacks are justified?

Sorry about the double post.

Joe, Israel is totaly justified in all it does. Hizbullah likes to drink Jewish blood.

There. Are you satisfied?

No Chris, not so satisfied, since I am not so monochrome!

Yes, though, Hizbollah is pure evil, since their reason Dete is to purpetate and promote conflict rather than to actually seek accomidation. Furhter, not only do they have little regard for the lives of their enemys, they are oblivious to the sanctity of the lives of those in whose interest that claim to be representing. Even worse, they cynically expliot their deaths for propeganda purposes.

The worse evil, however, are the media and commentators who swollow their (hizbollah’s) bilge without subjecting it to any level of reasonable critical annlysis.

Take Sonic for expample. Although he is a particularly infantile and easy example.

Alec, agree or disagree with you, I am a fan

Joe:

if you believe in such things as pure good or pure evil, then I am afraid that we can neve really have a decent discussion, as I believe that ‘pure’ of anything does not really exist.

Hizbullah is around for a very good reason. One that Israel, with its acts, helped create. It didn’t just appear out of nowhere. And there have been many examples throughout history where people will put even the lives of their loved ones in danger in order to win a conflict in which they trully believed. That doesn’t make them ‘pure’ evil. It makes you ‘duo-chrome’…

No, I am not a Muslim. Not A Christian either. Can you guess?

Well at least you are admitting that hizbollah set their own up to be killed.

Now we have the basis for a discussion about Isreal’s actions in Lebanon.

Chris – do you follow the Immortal Sol Invictus?

(I’m a bit of an Ahura Mazda chap myself, to be honest)

Joe:

Israel commited war crimes, so did Hezbollah.

I am listening

If, and I say IF, Israel acted recklessly, resulting in the preventable death of non-combatants, then I agree Israel commited war crimes. Where is the evidence that ISRAEL acted so recklessly. Secondly, whatt is your standard of evidence.

Lets talk!

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/isr-summary-eng

For instance, in Qana, it is reasonable to ask:

1) was Israel justified in believing that that building housed weapons/fighters?

2) IF 1 is true, did Israel take reasonable action to ensure that no civilians were present at the time of the bombing?
Or
Did Israel take reasonable measure to allow civilians the oportunity to flee from that building?

3) Did That building pose a sufficient threat to Israel and her civilians or military oporations to justify the use of military force to destroy it?

These are reasonable questions to ask, but I remain unconvinced that the answers are clearly blakc or white.

On the other hand, what tactical purpose did lobing ball bearing filled missiles into Haifa serve. Not to mention the Causes Belle for the conflict, the cross border incursion by a Lebaneese roxy military outfit, against a country who no longer had any presence in Lebanon (so it is not a terrritorial dispute, nor was the attack made in any area of territorial dispute.)

Sonic, Buzz off and let the adults talk.

Joe:

the dispersal of thousands of antipersonel bombs…

(a) or (b), Sonic?

xxx

P

According to the UN anti-mine personal, the “cluster” bombs were not used in an “illegitamate” fashion.

But I have to ask you a question before we go furhter, since i am in doubt about what you have written.

Is it fair to understand that you view a “terrorist” who plants a bomb in a Military HQ, calls and warns people to leave as morally equivalent to the terrorist who steps on a bus with a bomb strapped to himself and detonates it with the intent to kill as many of his fellow travellers as possible?

Sonic complains of other people changing the subject, but he decided to start off his lovely string of comments in this thread with the following (a thread btw which was about a cartoon in SW that depicted the ‘Israelis’ having killed Jesus, you know, the son of God, some 2,000 years ago):

“Israel does bomb civilian targets all over the middle east (remember quana)

I do not see how pointing that out is anti-semitic.

Posted by sonic at December 13, 2006 07:48 PM”

(Sonic may want to realize that Israel has been a state for not even 60 years.)

((and I do like the ‘bomb civilian targets all over the middle east’ – real cute))

I am saying that the terrorist who steps on a bus and the terrorist who plants a bomb in british headquarters and ‘calls’ ahead, are both fighting for something. The moral equivalency question that you pose is irrelevant, unless there is ‘good’ killing and ‘bad’ killing. I don’t think that is the case.

The Jews who planted bombs, along with the Jews that terrorised 800 000 Arabs to leave their homes, seem to me to have been just as bad as the Arabs who blow themselves up to terrorize the Israelis into making concessions. Israel has, over and over again demonstrated that it sits at the bargaining table only when faced with power.

The first intifadah led to the Oslo accords. I remember at that time, in discussions my proffesor from Haifa University, talking about the possibility that Palestinian resistence would take a bad turn if Israel does not agree to talks and make some sort of reparations for the displaced. Sure enough, after Rabin’s murder, and after the next Israeli government began the settlements again, we also witnessed the first suicide bombings.

In other words, desparations breeds desperate measures. This is what Israel with its policies has managed to bring about in the occupied territories.

I and I say IF, Israel acted recklessly, resulting in the preventable death of non-combatants, then I agree Israel commited war crimes. Where is the evidence that ISRAEL acted so recklessly. Secondly, whatt is your standard of evidence.

Punishment strikes, where they flattened Shiite areas in Lebanon indiscriminately in retaliation for the rockets, were pretty inexcusable in my view – especially since the roads out of these towns had usually been bombed. The Israeli practice of setting off jet sonic booms over civilians day and night, which causes great distress and even miscarriages, is something I think is out of line too. The vast use of cluster bombs on residential areas in the final days of the Lebanon war was clearly unforgivable.

However probably the worst aspect of all is what’s going on in Lebanon today, which some of us said would be the outcome of such an overreaction to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. It’s already made it harder for the coalition in Iraq to deal with the Shiite parties and their death squads, but now if Hezbollah manages to topple the democratic government in Lebanon, which it is very close to doing, and sets up a Syrian and Iranian imperialist fundamentalist client state, that will be a huge defeat for everybody. That’s why the SWP types are hanging on every bit of news coming out of that country at the moment.

Very sad to see given where Lebanon was just over a year ago.

The Jews who planted bombs, along with the Jews that terrorised 800 000 Arabs to leave their homes

Page 1 line 1 of the PLO/Hamas propeganda book. Nevertheless it is demonstrably not true. 800,000 Arabs were not terrorized or frieghtened out of their homes.

I am saying that the terrorist who steps on a bus and the terrorist who plants a bomb in british headquarters and ‘calls’ ahead, are both fighting for something.

Yes they are both fighting for something. The problem is one is fighting to construct a State while the other is realy fighting to prevent the construction of a State. The only equivilancey between the two is the bomb, there is no other comparison.

In other words, desparations breeds desperate measures. This is what Israel with its policies has managed to bring about in the occupied territories.

Whereas in the territories that it has withdrawn from, Palestinians throw off their despair by wrecking whatever economic resources have been left behind and unloading a magazine of bullets into the children of their political rivals.

You are completely wrong about the Holocaust, about the geography of Israel, the history of Palestine and Israel, about Western foreign policy, and just about everything else you have posted about today. You are also totally wrong about the background and demographic of the people you have been arguing against.

As Sonic might say, “plonk”.

Joe:

you are obviously incapable of an in depth discussion so good night and don’t bother to answer me…

… The Israeli practice of setting off jet sonic booms over civilians day and night, which causes great distress and even miscarriages, …

Mike I would try and take you seriously if you didn’t trot out the above line at every oportunity.

So I will ask you this question. Piont me towards the empirical study that actually demonstrates that sonic booms “cause” miscariges (in Lebanon no less)? Explain to me how a correlation to geographic spikes in miscarrige rates (assuming one actually exosts) can actually be shown to be causaly attributed to sonic booms, and say to the stress of fear that some Hizbollah dickhead will suddenly decide you are a collaborator and arbitrarily shoot you? etc.

Go on, I am actually quite intersted in HOW CAUSATION was established, again assuming that thier has been an otherwise inexplicable rise in miscarriges in LEBANON.

Montag,

of course I am wrong, when only you can be ‘right’

I wonder if the references to Masada and Bar Kokbha are thinly-veiled swipes at John Zorn, a fellow Jewish jazz musician who has spearheaded the “Radical Jewish Culture” movement and, in fact, has a quartet called Masada and an album entitled “Bar Kokbha”.

Seems pretty likely, really. Mr. Atzmon’s piece comes across like a clumsy foray into the practice of projecting his pet causes onto the entirely unrelated actions of others. Remember how some were blaming the bombings in Egypt a couple years ago on “environmental concerns”? One grows tired of watching people twist any and every action into evidence of “guilt.”

At any rate, I recommend both the Zorn projects.

Joe:

you are obviously incapable of an in depth discussion so good night and don’t bother to answer me…

Posted by Chris Voidis at December 14, 2006 12:21 AM

“In other words, Joe you are factually right. Given discord from what I want to be true and what is demonstrably true, I can no longer deal with the cognative dissonance, and am no longer discuss the issue with soemone who can see throught the smoke.”

Would that explain your position Chris.

“According to the UN anti-mine personal, the “cluster” bombs were not used in an “illegitamate” fashion”

Source please.

Given that the UNHCR documents 800 000 Palestinian refugees and Joe says that it’s Hamas and PLO propaganda, Chris has no partner for dialogue.

That would explain your lack of position Joe…

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/30/global14155_txt.htm

The problem Chris, is that you conflate 800,000 emigres with 800,000 people who were terrorized ou ttheir homes. The former does not prove the latter.

While some Arabs were forcibly removed from their homes, the vast majority left in anticipation of an Arab victory in the upcoming war (e.g. the Arabs from Haifa).

In furhter proof that Israel did not, as a matter of policy, forcibly evict Arabs, those Arabs who did not flee live in Israel as full Israeli citizens etc.

You see the difference? Probably not, unfortunately. It is I who should give up in frustration with “discussing” with you.

Joe:

“Israeli cluster strikes frequently hit towns and villages, including many sizeable locations; these sites were apparently deliberately targeted.”

Thanks for the site! Why give me ammo to shoot you with?

Often, the targeted towns and villages had been largely or completely abandoned by the Lebanese people, as they heeded Israel’s warnings to depart before an attack. But civilians are encountering large numbers of submunition duds as they return to populated areas.

Many strikes were targeted at olive groves and tobacco fields, which would have been likely locations for Hezbollah to launch rocket attacks at Israel.

Go Ahead, but I defy you to find any suggestion in the article that Israel actually did any thing illigitamate.

Try actually reading, rather than projecting what you want it to say.

Joe:

If the Arab armies were to win, why flee?

The problem, it seems Joe, is that you are stuck in a narrative that has been prepackaged for you. This is changing, and it is changing most of all in Israel. People are beginning to come to terms with what has happenned and with the fact that Israel is not ‘lily white’ but just as dirty asy anyone in this whole matter.

Joe, did you actually read the article you cite?

What an idiot.

Sonic, I did. Did you, if you did, can you point me towards the specific accusation that Israel somehow violated International law throught either the use or method of use of these munitions. That is the accusation.

As I said Chris, Israel is not lily white, but your accusations are so wildly conflated as to render silly. You want inteligent dialogue (you claim) yet refuse to engage in a discussion based on fact.

Look, I’ll put forward this analogy. Holocaust deniers often cause people to “slip up” and try and argue that 6 million jews were killed in Aushwitiz. This is obviously, and demonstrably untrue, and making the suggestion weakens the arguement AGAINST Holocaust denial.

Can you see how it is untrue? From what I have read so far I would guess that you cannot.

If the Arab armies were to win, why flee?

Because the Arab governments deliberately broadcast false reports of Israeli massacres, as they admitted a few days later, in order to cohere the Arab populations behind their war effort.

I would try and take you seriously if you didn’t trot out the above line at every oportunity.

I haven’t mentioned it since the Lebanon war occurred. It was only your rather dubious claims that triggered my memory on this matter.

No, I don’t have documents I can cite which prove sonic booms have been known to cause miscarriage, only the testimony of doctors on news programme I have seen. However for anyone who has heard a sonic boom – which will be very few of us given they are illegal over mainland Europe and the US, and I presume also Israel – it’s a claim that sounds entirely credible. Low flying sonic booms can collapse a building.

You don’t help your point by being in favour of sonic bombs, cluster bombing residential areas and indiscriminate punishment air strikes on buildings. Just my advice.

Joe:

yes I can see how your analogy is true. You use the same method when referring to the Palestinian refugees. You say first that they were not all evicted through terror, then you say most were lured away by Arabs who misinformed them as to ‘massacres’. And yet you have already admitted that many Palestinians were terrorized out of their homes.

This is what I mean about the changing narrative. Already there is quite a bit of admission of the truth of the extentto which Israel used methods of terror to evict the Plaestinians. In any case, they left, whether out of terror or by being mislead. So why not let them come back, or at least pay reparations?

Mike,

Have you considered for a moment, that a baseless accusation is baseless no matter how much you want it to be true?

Chris,

And yet you have already admitted that many Palestinians were terrorized out of their homes.

No I haven’t, I said Some.

So why not let them come back, or at least pay reparations?

Sure, any of the “800,000″, who are still alive and can autheticate that they were forcebly removed, should be allowed to return. Further, the decedents of any of the “800,000″ who were “forcebly” removed should be paid reparations, no dispute.

Similarly the “800,000″ Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were terrized and hounded out of their homes and buisnesses, post 1948 should also be paid reparation for their lost assets. Do you agree to that?

Chris, if you ever want an example of double standard, compare the definition and treatment of Palestinian refugees with those of any other refugee group. Would you mind doing me a favour, could you explain why hte Palestinians are singled out for special treatment?

Chris,

Further,

And yet you still haven’t backdown from your silly and wild accusation.

then you say most were lured away by Arabs who misinformed them as to ‘massacres’.

Oh and I didn’t say that either!

The Oslo accords more or less spelled all these things out and a substantial number were to return. But what happened then? Rabin was put in his place…

As for all refugees around the world, I agree that all should be accorded the same status and priveleges accorded to Jews and Palestinian refugees.

The Oslo accords more or less spelled all these things out and a substantial number were to return. But what happened then? Rabin was put in his place…

As for all refugees around the world, I agree that all should be accorded the same status and priveleges accorded to Jews and Palestinian refugees.

OK Chris, you will have to tell me where you are getting that from!

Which still dodges the question, will you retract tha accusation the Israel forceably removed 800,000 Arabs from their homes.

I said it terrorized 800 000 Palestinians from their homes. No, I will not retract that because to the best of my knowledge, it is the truth. Between you, Joe, and an Israeli proffesor (Jewish, just in case you need that as a certificate of authenticity) backed up by my own research, I will have to opt for the latter and disregard what you say…sorry…

In any case, arguing over the number of refugees reminds of another argument concerning numbers…hint hint… What are you saying Joe, that Israelis were sad to see the 800 000 go? In fact they might one day be sorry, because they may well realize that it would had caused less blood and tears, and less to negotiate about.

No disagreement, but what does that have to say about the existence of an historical Jesus? The whole Roman soldier Pandeira may have been an invention by Judaism to discredit it’s then small offshoot of Christianity, but if so then how does that provide evidence that Christianity was not based on some historical person (whatever the name of his biological father happens to be)?

It’s not meant to refute the idea of a historical Jesus. I was postulating that a Jewish account of Jesus’ life is most likely predicated on the biblical narrative, rather than being an independent source.

The more substantive point was that his passages about Jesus are interpolations: fraudulent additions from around the fourth century.

Based on what?

Based on textual continuity (or the lack thereof), incongruity and – for good measure – some circumstantial evidence.

The Jesus passage of “Jewish Antiquities” is inserted clumsily. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs make more sense with the Jesus paragraph removed. Try reading 3.2 and 3.4 here, missing out 3.3. Try again, reading 3.3 followed by 3.4. Do you see what I mean?

In terms of content, can you read Josephus’ account and conclude that he was a pious Jew? He accepts Jesus as Christ and believes in the resurrection in this passage alone, which is somewhat at odds with his identifying himself as a Jew.

The earliest known, Christian invocation of Josephus was by Eusebius, the father of church history, whose attitude towards truth can be summed up by one chapter heading in Praeparatio Evangelica: “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived”.

What about the following? The existence of an historical Hercules is perfectly sensible. Believing that anything written about him is entirely accurate is a different matter.

Not as verifiable, and not comparable, but in actual fact IMO Hercules is actually more likely to be based on a once living man than not. Though as I say, it’s not a reasonable comparison.

Why is this not a reasonable comparison? Why is Hercules’ existence not as verifiable? Do you have any reason for thinking that Hercules is probably based on a real man, or do you just assume that most legends have provenance in actual history (not an unreasonable assumption, as it happens)?

You also IMO picked a particularly bad example from Greek mythology to make this point. Of all the Greek gods it is probably easiest to make the case that Hercules is based on an historical person.

I agree that there is a better case for Hercules’ existence, which is why it is a good example. The point is that no-one now assumes or even really cares whether Hercules ever walked the earth. The only reason why Hercules seems less plausible is because he died along with ancient Greek mythology. When Christianity dies, so will Christ.

Rubbish. Believing Jesus existed, without any evidence that he did, is silly.

Of course there is *evidence* that he did. If it were not so then we wouldn’t even be discussing the matter.

So, if I change the discussion to one of goblins, that should count as evidence that goblins exist?

The fact that you proclaim no evidence for it undermines everything you say. You appear to have a non-impartial agenda.

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying I should be providing evidence of his non-existence (“prove a negative”), or are you claiming that my rejectionist stance is so extreme as to undermine my credibility? I’m obviously unable to do the former, and if you think my claims are preposterous, tell me why you think Jesus existed.

I don’t claim to be impartial: I am an atheist and antitheist. However, when I first started reading about Jesus, I was only seeking to learn about the history of the man I had always supposed to exist, and was persuaded by the evidence that he did not. In fairness, I was very comfortable drawing that conclusion.

What little evidence there is of Jesus’s existence has been discredited.

So we go from “no evidence” to “little evidence”. Why should I take you seriously?

Discredited evidence is not evidence. Why should I take you seriously with a primary school semantic trick like that? Would some scare quotes (little “evidence”) have made the point easier to understand?

When I say there is no evidence of Jesus’ existence, I mean that there is no contemporaneous reference to any such person. Jesus, as described in the Gospels, created quite a stir, and yet the Romans, who left us a plethora of historical data, were strangely silent about the troublemaking Son of God.

There are also plenty of sensible reasons to disbelieve his existence. Compare the detailed stories of the bible with archaeological developments, textual anomalies, mistranslations and earlier religious myths, and you’re left with a very dubious tale. In short, there’s sod all to convince an atheist that Jesus existed as a historical figure, and plenty to explain how he was invented and embellished.

I’m no historian, and I don’t consider mine to be in any way a convincing argument. It’s late, and this is a particularly long comment as it stands. However, I do hope that these remarks will be read by some open-minded atheists and agnostics, who might be spurred to investigate for themselves. By accepting the New Testament as a legitimate historical document, you give credence to the more odious interpretations, even if you yourself support an evaluation based on contemporary, liberal values.

Joe, how many refugees were allowed to return according to the Oslo accords? Do you know?

“Israel somehow violated International law”

They killed 1000+ civilians and due to their use of cluster bombs are still killing them as we speak.

Don’s start gibbering on about legalisms.

Chris Vadis: Sure enough, after Rabin’s murder, and after the next Israeli government began the settlements again, we also witnessed the first suicide bombings.

This chronology is wrong. A wave of suicide bombings began within a week of Rabin’s assasination, and transformed Israel’s political landscape. It robbed Peres’ Labour government of 20 per cent in the polls, and guaranteed Netanyahu’s victory and the settlement program that followed.

This happened at the height of the peace talks, with the sole intention of destroying any chance of a negotiated settlement. It was a deliberate and bloody campaign to get Netanyahu elected.

I know this contradicts the view that terrorism is only a response to Israeli brutality, but why let the facts get in the way of a good yarn?

Coming back to this blog after a couple of weeks (some of us have to travel to exotic places, you know…) and it is really becoming depressing.

SWP posts a borderline anti-Semitic cartoon and an SWP groupie a pure anti-Semitic rant. Moreover, they both borrow a kind of medieval Christian beliefs (repudiated by the Catholic church, say) that neither shares, except for the narrow purpose of Jew-hatred. And what is the reaction?

In an ideal world one would have expected somebody like sonic to display minimum of shame. In other words, either condemn the rant or, if you are incapable of it, keep shtum. But we are not living in an ideal world. And, so, over to the alternative strategy: mention an instance where, clearly, Israel was at fault (yes, Joe, it was, in spades!) and not just distract the discussion but make that instance into an implicit justification of the original rant.

What is the connection? Suppose that Israel is guilty as charged of every single accusation that sonic and Chris Voidas are hurling at her. (In reality, it is guilty of some, innocent of others, but that’s the reality that both sets of committed fundamentalists find so hard to swallow.) So what? So condemn where condemnation is due, carefully marshalling facts. But is this a justification for racist cartoons and violently racist pieces?

SWP and Aztmon are playing here exactly the same game as BNP does after any act of terrorism blamed on Muslims: using it as a launching pad for group-hatred of all Muslims. Those who, whether unwittingly or on purpose (and it is not my place to guess) create a smoke screen, act as accomplices.

Chris is scum, because his idea of fair warning is that I and 6 million people living in Israel, evacuate the area if we don’t want to get hurt. And for him, that is comparable with tactical and specific evacuations of civilians of the actual battlefield during a hot war. You are a supporter of genocide Chris. And how many Turks have you killed?

Chris, how many people meet the definition of refugees, such as it was they and not their parents/grandparents whose legal status is not certain? Do you know?

Do you care? Or are they simply ciphers and noble savages in your ongoing Jew-hatred?

Amazingly, incredibly, I am entire with Byzer on this thread. Also, I have know of the shameful blood-soaked history to the Hellenist terrorist state since reading a book (published in the ’70s) when I was about 14.

The tens of thousands of Pellopennese Muslims butchered in the weeks running up to Easter – the barbaric Orthodox festival of sacrifice – 1831. The witch Bouboulina. The Classicists, hoping to establish a model state in an orange grove, watching in horror as Pamluk Muslims were slaughtered and crying “Hellas is dead!”.

While referring to Israel as the “Zionist entity” is based in that shibboleth of the anti-establishment left, international law, this foul creation is officallly known as the “Hellenic Republic”!

On a related subject, what do people think of the Greek Cypriots?

Ooops, wrong thread.

Israel does bomb civilian targets all over the middle east (remember quana)

I do not see how pointing that out is anti-semitic.

Your ridiculous hyperbole aside, if you had the first clue, or indeed even a map that would show you the way to the first clue, or possibly a GPS lock on it, about European history you would be able to answer the following question:

Name one of the “crimes” that the Jews were routinely persecuted (i.e. killed) for in Europe.

You would be able to answer it with “killing Jesus”, and you would be able to see how this pogrom-producing narrative fits disturbingly with the attitudes that produced the cartoon and with its subject matter. Why not Santa with white phosphorous? Why not a christmas tree with a cluster bomb? Why not a snowman with a bunker buster? Why, exactly, Jesus?

But since you are part of the international banking trade in a town built on land stolen from a murdered indiginous people you are working actively to impose Western “universals” such as “human rights” on I don’t expect you to be able to understand that. You flaming hypocrite with a dash of smug. You bring a whole new meaning to the word “plonker”. And a whole old one as well.

Have you paid that bet you lost yet?

They killed 1000+ civilians and due to their use of cluster bombs are still killing them as we speak.

Then why aren’t you out there helping defuse them?

The “killing civilians is bad” and “cluster bombs shouldn’t be used” arguments have been made by this very site. The difference is that here they stand out against a background of other attitudes and were made for reasons of morality, not because of your join-the-dots beerhalle posturing. And they have been put forward in a way that isn’t simply an antiwargasm of being right about decisions you will never actually have to make yourself.

Have you paid that bet you lost yet?

(I’m a bit of an Ahura Mazda chap myself, to be honest)

o_O

There is a name I’d never though I’d hear on Harry’s Place.

I have a friend who uses Ahura Mazda in some of his magical work.

N.B. David T, no post on David Cameron attending the Morrisey Gig the other night?

==> They killed 1000+ civilians and due to their use of cluster bombs are still killing them as we speak.

That ain’t just a classic example of how to lie, it’s plain wrong. First off, not every Israeli missile hit civilians. That said, the cluster bombs were a disgrace.

FABIAN ==> And Hezbollah ensured that this will happen.

I accept that, but Israel still escalated the conflict. I would like to believe that the war hasn’t proved to be a massive own goal for your country, and that Olmert ain’t a mediocre leader who’s just compounded this impression my blabbing about nukes.

“That said, the cluster bombs were a disgrace.”

They were. Used by both sides, of course (although I think the only firm evidence of their use is by Hizbollah, hence the condemnation from HRW).

I can only hope that sonic and voidis get some factual history books on antisemitism and the Middle East for Xmas/holidays, and lay off reading inflammatory pamphlets or propaganda

Muffin’s correct in his comments but I think the reason that sonic responded so, was not necessarily political malice (although that certainly is possible) I think his response is more basic: Sonic doesn’t understand antisemitism, its mythology or imagery

it is apparent from Sonic’s contribution that he cannot admit when he doesn’t know something (even how to use Google, see the other thread on Darfur) so I would speculate that he is completely pig ignorant on all but the most obvious manifestations of antisemitism

it is hard for many people to admit ignorance, more so for people like sonic (and the SWP), where innate character flaws seem to impede their development

So here’s a basic book list for sonic/voidis:

Books as starters:

Anti-semitism before the Holocaust by Albert Lindemann
Antisemitism: the longest hatred by Robert Wistrich

Historical (and pointers to the wider topic):

Semites and Anti-semites by Bernard Lewis
Holocaust and antisemitism by Jocelyn Hellig
Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the contemporary world by Robert Wistrich (Ed)

A completely free book is That’s Funny You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic, an anti-racist analysis of left anti-semitism by Steve Cohen, at
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/

Israel books:

Israel history by Martin Gilbert is a good read.
A history of Israel by Ahron Bregman
Israel and Palestine by Bernard Wasserstein

The 50 years War by Bregman and El-Tahri

Still no even handed condemnation from Israel’s apologists, only Sonic, myself and the other real left posters. What would it take? A condemnation of Hizballah from Lenin’s Tomb?

Byzer, shameless self-plugging I know, but I wrote a little essay on the historical Jesus following a dull lecture by the cadaverous Geza Vermes. You can find it here:

http://mrstrellis.cream.org/?p=87

I consider the myth of the historical Jesus to be one of the best PR stunts, ever. When I was an RE teacher, all my textbooks swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and so did I. The evidence is sketchy at best, falsified at worst.

There is no more reason for an atheist, Jew or Zoroastrian to accept the existence of Jesus than there is for them to accept the existence of Krishna, Thor, Zeus or indeed fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I said it terrorized 800 000 Palestinians from their homes. No, I will not retract that because to the best of my knowledge, it is the truth…

In any case, arguing over the number of refugees reminds of another argument concerning numbers…hint hint…

Posted by Chris Voidis at December 14, 2006 01:53 AM

Lies, lies, and more damn lies!

See The Big Arab Lie

Don’t miss the chapter on The Jewish Refugees and see also Pierre Rehov’s Silent Exodus and Hostages of Hatred.

I’m no historian, and I don’t consider mine to be in any way a convincing argument. It’s late, and this is a particularly long comment as it stands. However, I do hope that these remarks will be read by some open-minded atheists and agnostics, who might be spurred to investigate for themselves. By accepting the New Testament as a legitimate historical document, you give credence to the more odious interpretations, even if you yourself support an evaluation based on contemporary, liberal values.

Which of course does not mean that it was not embellished and even full of falsehoods (as indeed the present accounts of the life of Rael or L Ron Hubbard are no doubt embellished and full of falsehoods, as are the accounts of Muhammed or Moses or Buddha (miracles included)).

Still no even handed condemnation from Israel’s apologists, only Sonic, myself and the other real left posters. What would it take? A condemnation of Hizballah from Lenin’s Tomb?

No, I’ll tell you what it will take: the moment criticism of Israeli actions is no longer conflated with the right of Israel to exist (and the right of Israelis to be alive), in that very moment sane discussion of Israeli deeds and misdeeds will be possible and most welcome. Once you and sonic, Atzmon and Ahmenidajad stop preaching the message according to whioh Israel (uniquely to any state in the history of this planet) must be punished for its actions by denial of its existence.

So let’s stop this hypocracy.

I would heartily recommend Josh Scholar’s killer script and grease mon key, it makes reading a thread much easier, less nonsense and idiocy from Strasserite filth like Male Nurse

see http://weblog.nightstudies.net/?p=38

Thank you for laying your bias on the table with the above paragraph. It was clear that you had some agenda so well done for revealing it.

You are suggesting that the motives underlying my initial comment constitute some agenda that undermines my impartiality. There is nothing substantial in the paragraph you quote that was not implied in that first comment. Instead of gloating as though you’ve won a major debating point, perhaps you could explain what’s in the paragraph you cite that makes my position suspect.

As I’ve already told you, I reversed my position to one of disbelief in Jesus’ existence after assessing the evidence. However, this is beside the point: judge the veracity of what I’m saying on the basis of my arguments – which you’ve chosen flatly to ignore – rather than on some imagined bias.

The mere fact of the existence of Christianity is by itself *evidence* of the existence of an historical Jesus.

Indeed, this is technically what’s known as rubbish evidence. Or very weak circumstantial evidence.

The default hypothesis must initially be that he existed, since a religion supposedly following a prophet which came into being without such a person ever existing is itself a more extraordinary claim than the converse. In fact I would even characterise it as an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

Such a credulous approach contravenes conventional philosophical and historical methodology, which is that without any evidence in its favour, a proposition should be approached with scepticism. Instead, you argue that if enough people believe a proposition for long enough, the onus is on the sceptic to produce “extraordinary” evidence to the contrary.

It’s reasonable to say that there may be a germ of truth behind some myths, without holding that they’re correct in all their detail and inconsistency: perhaps a great flood inspired the story of Noah. It doesn’t follow that there must also have been a man who lived in a whale.

There is a multitude of possible explanations as to why millions have come to believe in a character named Jesus Christ: citing their belief as proof of his being rather begs the question.

You’ve chosen to ignore all my substantive points; claimed I’m biased without explaining why you think so or how that undermines my arguments; and have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic rules of philosophical and historical investigation. I consider this discussion over unless you can address these shortcomings.

If you are genuinely interested in this subject you could read Mrs. Trellis’ excellent article, or something more comprehensive here. However, it is impossible to prove a negative. If you insist on incontrovertible evidence for Jesus’ non-existence, of course you won’t find it.

Neither will you find any evidence for the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

IF Jesus is based on a historical person it is safe to say that his story bears NO RESEMBELENCE to the story in the Bible. EVERY DETAIL ABOUT JESUS’S LIFE IN THE BIBLE IS MADE-UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE know NOTHING about the “real Jesus” – if there ever was one.

For instance – the ritual of Mass and the ingestion of bread and wine (symbolizing body and blood) is a direct import of a Mithraic ritual (called a Myasstra, latinized to Myass) where Mithraists drank win and ate bread symbolizing the body and blood of the Primeveal Bull. The whole “Last Supper” story was a post-hoc construction designed to give a backstory to a borrowed ritual.

The NT was conceived as a political tract by disgruntled sectarian Pharisaic Judeans which in Judea (surprise, surprise) required the fulfillment of prophecies mentioned in the Tanach to establish its legitimacy. To that end, a messiah (a concept which only entered the Mosaic religion after the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE and even then referred to a divinely inspired political leaqder as opposed to the only son of god) persona was grafted onto a character referred to as Jesus of Nazareth.

Eventually, some of the followers of this Judean messianic groupscuole split with their comrades over whether, or not to take the political tract out of Judea to convert non-Judean subjects of the Roman Empire as a strategy to defeat Rome. It was during this period that the messiah persona grafted onto the Jesus figure became more than just a divinely inspired political leader of the House of David come to rescue Judeans from their foreign occupation and now with pagans and polytheists as a potential audience became god’s only son raised from the dead. The NT, as so ably argued by Dominic Crossan, was far more a blatant case of prophecy historicized than a case of prophecy becoming history.

They killed 1000+ civilians

Of which 500+ to 700 were combatants and not civilians.