Remembrance day is a thing in the UK, stemming from WW1 and folk like to stand still and quiet for 2 minutes, to 'remember the dead'. — unenlightened

Remembrance Day is meant to remember those who died in war, but I doubt it was meant to remember the enemy combatants, like the axis power soldiers who lost their lives in commitment to the destruction of Britain. That is, it is not just a day to lament death, regardless of who has died, but those who died in war defending Britain.

And so the day gets hijacked by those with a political message, contrary to the intent of the day, with the express message of a moral equivalence of these past wars with the Palestinian resistance, under the guise that all they mean to say is that death of any sort is a bad thing.

I'm opposed to chucking stuff at police, and do hope they, like their political opposites who often do the same, are properly charged.

An old post on Jewish antisemism vs Jewish antizionism ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544984 :mask:

I doubt it was meant to remember the enemy combatants, like the axis power soldiers who lost their lives in commitment to the destruction of Britain. That is, it is not just a day to lament death, regardless of who has died, but those who died in war defending Britain. — Hanover

Well My state owned radio featured a reading of "All quiet on the Western front", a German story of lament for the loss of one German youth, and another program about the dreadful failure of the armistice to bring peace in the long term to either Europe or worse to the Ottoman Empire, largely due to its inequity as between races and nations. I find the suggestion that one is or ought to be partisan about the dead a bit offensive, not personally, but to the long tradition of using the poppy as a symbol of the common colour of all our blood regardless of flag or skin. It seems that even in death we are a long way apart.

But my main point was to expose the irony of the likes of Tommy Robinson defending Israel. and the dreadful fact of the British government encouraging him.

From Volume III of the ISGAP Papers (Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy).
https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ISGAP-Volume-III-Full.pdf

From the first section: Antisemitism and the Problem of Jewish Firstness ...

"We clearly cannot model any critique of antisemitism today on the kind
of liberal, consensual campaigns directed against the Nazis during the 1930s and
1940s or the kind of self-evident exposures of Czarist pogroms that enraged
enlightened opinion around the turn of the last century. We cannot assume a
shared definition of antisemitism or even a shared assumption that it’s bad. For
the pro-Palestinian Left, for example, instances of Jew-hatred propagated by the
Palestinian Authority are just further evidence of how badly the Israeli occupa-
tion has damaged its victims and represent an understandable if not justifiable
expression of resentment. Even more, “debunking” of various “Jewish myths”
(regarding the history of Jewish existence in ancient Israel or even the biological
continuity of the Jewish people) may be seen as a necessary part of the struggle
against the legitimation of Zionism, although such debunking will often be
indistinguishable from antisemitism. All of this further means that antisemitism
will not be isolatable as an issue (as in isolatable to the antisemite alone as Sartre would suggest). ... In a book I have written together with Eric Gans (well, he actually did most of the writing), we develop a way of thinking about antisemitism that, let’s say, implicates the Jews without exculpating the antisemites." PG 14 and 15.

Wait what was it that Nietzsche said again? Antisemitism is a consequence of Judaism? Apparently ISGAP agrees on that angle. Perhaps for mildly different reasons but they show their hand by utilizing Theodor Lessing -- a Zionist Disciple of Nietzsche who was assassinated by Nazis

Doubt it up Doubters.

All it took was a little bit of reading, and I'll always have that on my side. :strong:

Unless anyone here is going for the counterintuitive claim that an organization dedicated to understanding and overcoming antisemitism is in fact full of antisemites writing psyop policies in some weird conspiracy theory BS to actually harm Jews ... Then I'm gonna take the liberty to smugly say "Case Closed" on the origins of anti-semitism.

They need Jesus to look sui generis. — schopenhauer1

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein.

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein. — BitconnectCarlos

So, I've already sufficiently answered your question regarding this. I would say reference the the whole post again, do some more research on historical Jesus studies that isn't just quoting the New Testament verbatim. That's like watching Fox News and calling it good for an accurate portrayal of current events.

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings.

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings. — BitconnectCarlos

I quoted the most anti-Pharisee passage and showed that there were similar (self-critical) texts in the Talmud. Then I pointed to the fact that there were no fixed ideas at the time, because they were pioneering them. There may have been some chain of oral tradition that went back to that time, but certainly not all views and all understandings were going to be kept. Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. This looks like Pharisee style interpretations of law. In regards to washing hands before eating, it could be an extant understanding of washing of the hands. Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. Either way, the New Testament has an idealized version of him, but certain ideas can be perhaps interpreted in the Pharisee style way he went about justifying his interpretations. Hillel had a more lenient view of Mosaic practice. Everything recorded in the Talmud by Hillel himself (which isn't much actually) doesn't mean that was the whole of the corpus. The Talmud is playing long distance telephone. You can have some religious a priori notions that the rabbis of the 200s-600s perfectly kept the records of the rabbis Pharisees from the 00s, but I would balk at such overconfidence because of prior religious commitments or because of some bias.

Oh and you brought up Rabbi Gamliel. In Acts, if there is anything of truth in that Pauline reinterpretation of events, Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. There could be some sympathy there, or an echo that the group had some Pharisee origin (albeit went off on a tangent with the influence of John the Baptist apocalyptic Essenic ideas).

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

I never read him in overly positive light. I mean, he was a good king I suppose, but I'd agree with you. He was not a Jesus like figure. Although Jesus was supposedly from his paternal line, because he Bible says the messiah must be, but Jesus had no paternal lineage, being the son of God and all. I never understood that — Hanover

David was the ultimate survivalist and very politically savvy. But yes one doesn't need to look too far to see his faults. The Jesus of the gospels is a very strange figure who is represented differently across different gospels. Regarding lineage, Mark provides a genealogy from David to Joseph who was the husband of Mary. I don't believe there's any mention of the virgin birth. Mark is generally considered the oldest gospel. Jesus also clearly denies divinity in Mark 10:17.

The Devil That Never Dies by Daniel Goldhagen is a comprehensive summary of this very topic.

Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. — schopenhauer1

He also said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore man is lord even of the sabbath." He seemingly claims to know God's intention behind giving man the Sabbath in the Genesis account. Jesus certainly engages in biblical interpretation; it just seems when he does this he'll assume high degrees of certainty/knowledge. The gospels note how he speaks with authority unlike the rabbis/pharisees of the time. So it seems Jesus would be against what we would call restrictive Sabbath rules.

Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. — schopenhauer1

The handwashing episode highlights Jesus's take on defilement which as far as I can tell is unique to him and not the position taken by the writers of e.g. Leviticus, but an interesting one nonetheless.

"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

So eating shellfish (or eating with unwashed hands) will not defile but e.g. thinking dirty thoughts will. See Mark 7:14.

Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for sharing. I did not know that about Gamliel.

biblical interpretation; it just seems when he does this he'll assume high degrees of certainty/knowledge. The gospels note how he speaks with authority unlike the rabbis/pharisees of the time. — BitconnectCarlos

Did you just start reading the gospels a week ago?

do you have anything to contribute?

do you have anything to contribute? — BitconnectCarlos

I was actually curious. Keep it to yourself if you must.

Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein. — BitconnectCarlos

You won't find it, Jesus refuted Judaism, In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking,  and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.”

Jesus had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith. The whole ecclesiastical  dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”