Jewish extremists suspected of torching Christian church in apparent Jerusalem hate crime

[DonViejo]

Source: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
26 FEB 2015 AT 14:16 ET

Suspected Jewish extremists set fire to a Greek Orthodox seminary building in Jerusalem early Thursday, police said, 24 hours after a mosque was torched in the West Bank.

The vandals torched an annexe of the seminary near the walls of the Old City and scrawled “graffiti insulting Jesus”, police spokeswoman Luba Samri said, describing it as a “nationalist” attack.

Police said the assailants set fire to the toilet and shower block at the seminary, causing damage but no injuries.

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin condemned the attack.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/jewish-extremists-suspected-of-torching-christian-church-in-apparent-jerusalem-hate-crime/

[KamaAina]

1. Graffiti insulting Jesus?

But he was Jewish!

[meti57b]

3. Yes, he was Jewish, ......a Jewish revolutionary against the Romans.

[randys1]

4. Is there any unbiased, scientific, not religious proof he existed?

[meti57b]

7. I don't know of any proof, but if it can be assumed he did exist....

then what I posted, would be my explanation of the story.

[snagglepuss]

8. There is no proof that Moses existed, no proof Jews were captive in Eypgt,

therefore no proof of their purported deliverance from Egypt, no proof of 99% of the Old Testament.

[former9thward]

11. Yes, Roman historians mentioned him.

And since the Roman emperors hated Christians it was not in their self interest to do so. Everything in history is biased btw, everything.

[starroute]

16. No contemporary Roman historian mentioned Jesus

The first definite mentions come a good while later and appear to report what the Christians said about their own origins.

[former9thward]

19. Christians were an enemy of the state.

There was no 1st amendment in the Empire. It would not be in their interest to mention Jesus. Also Jesus would have been a totally minor figure, if that, for Roman, historians at the time. He was mentioned by historians in the later part of the century. Nice try to deny history though.

[Scootaloo]

21. Yes, he was mentioned... as in "The Christians believe this guy existed"

I have a book that examines Inuit religious practices. Does this make Igaluk and Malina historical figures?

[former9thward]

24. No that is not what they said.

And your definition of "contemporary" is different than mine. What contemporary historian wrote about Plato or Socrates or Alexander the Great? As I said the Romans did not have a first amendment. Historians wrote for the government or rich benefactors. Jesus was considered a revolutionary and it was not in their interest to write about either him or Christians.

[progree]

25. Meanwhile, Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. So by then

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

for sure, Christians were no state secret. I think that the Roman historians heard it from the Christians is quite a bit more plausible than self-censorship by Roman historians. And it's not just Roman historians, there are no contemporaneous accounts from Jewish historians or anyone else.

[Scootaloo]

26. Funny all the records we have of the Bar Khoba revolt, then

By your logic, that one should have no records at all, whatsoever. How about the Icenii uprising? Or the problems in Dalmatia? You're engaging in special pleading and conspiracy logic - "the absence of evidence is itself evidence!"

And yes, that is exactly the sort of reference to Jesus made by the Romans - specifically, Tacitus. Josephus' writings, sixty years later, are similar in their reference to Jesus simply as a figure the Christians revered.

Personally, i don't think it matter if he was real or not, christians gonna christian either way, right? But let's nor pretend that history is covered in proof of the guy, 'cause it's just not.

[whatthehey]

41. To answer you

Plato himself wrote, and wrote about Socrates of whom he was a student (he's also made fun of as a silly character in Aristophanes). At least 3 of his contemporaries wrote extant biographies of Alexander including his official biographer and one of his generals.

Jesus? You have one obvious later interpolation in Josephus that isn't mentioned in numerous comentaries, including Christian ones, until centuries later, and Tacitus about 80 years after his supposed death mentioning what his followers believed. It's worth noting that folks like Moon and Schneerson in far more educated and documented times have people who think they are divine and tell legends about them.

And meanwhile in a quite heavily documented age and place, nobody saw fit to mention rather notable things like the dead rising, the sky turning black at noon, the slaughter of a generation of newborns and a guy who could cure leprosy and blindness by touch outside obviously movement hagiographies. Personally I'm guessing that would have caused comment.

[former9thward]

42. Where are these writings of Plato?

Where do they exist? I will save you some trouble. There are none. The earliest mention of Plato that we have comes about 900 AD, 1300 years after Plato. And you complain about someone writing about Jesus 80 years later. Now I believe Plato existed. I also believe Jesus existed. I apply the same standards to both. You don't.

[whatthehey]

44. Apples and oranges

The original copy of Tacitus doesn't exist any more either, and in fact is centuries older than Plato copies, in the 15th Century CE.

But, as I'm sure you know and are hoping you can slide it past less attentive readers, there is an enormous difference between age of oldest copy and timing of authorship.

If nobody had MENTIONED Alexander the Great until many decades after his death, he may be dubious too (although all the cities and Hellenism are a bit of a hint). It doesn't much matter that those mentions are not in the original author's own hand; it does matter that that original author saw Alexander and was with him. There is nothing like that about Jesus, however old the copies. The gospels were not written by apostles despite later naming conventions, and Paul, the earliest writer just a couple of decades later (but the oldest copies are from about 200CE. See how easy it is not to conflate authorship dates and copy dates?), never met the man and is conspicuously almost silent about his supposed life.

When a biography from that period was written is far more important than how old the copy we use is.

[former9thward]

45. It always apples and oranges to those who wish to deny history.

Its just apples to your dismay...

[MosheFeingold]

35. Yes

It's really not a dispute about his existence. He's in the Talmud, for example -- and not favorably, but as a heretic who was killed for being a heretic. Many other contemporaneous accounts mention him.

The rub lies on the validity of the execution and the events thereafter.

[progree]

38. (S)he asked if there is any "unbiased, scientific, not religious proof" he existed

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 11:58 PM - Edit history (2)

And the answer to that is no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

[MosheFeingold]

46. Ha

Obviously, I'm Jewish and my opinion regarding things Christian comes from a rather different viewpoint.

But Wiki (and you) misunderstand the nature of the Talmud. Yes, what-is-called-the-Talmud contains religious materials. It also contains basic history of events related to things religious, but which are not religious themselves. More like an encyclopedia. And it is not a Christian source.

The Nazarene is mentioned any number of times therein, as was (from the Jewish perspective) his heresy.

No reason to mention the heresy of a person who didn't exist.

[progree]

47. I was more questioning "scientific" and "unbiased" than "not religious"

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

After reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

Just from reading the first 2 paragraphs, and the section
"4 As evidence of the historical Jesus"

Maybe you should fix Wikipedia.

Myself, after having a course on the Bible and how it was copied and recopied, and how it was changed and edited by the scribes as they copied and all that, it is anything but "scientific" and "unbiased". Apparently from the Wikipedia article (and almost certainly) the Talmud went through the same kind of process and picked up stuff that wasn't there originally.

I find Bart Ehrman's writings on the (lack of) evidence of the historic Jesus more convincing than anything you've written so far.

I get it that supposedly it wasn't from a Christian source because it called Jesus a "heretic". But that doesn't mean that it isn't a story that originated from Christian(s) who spoke of a Jew who said he was the messiah and the Son Of God and was judged and crucified and all that. To Jews who heard those stories, they would of course interpret that as a story about a heretic. Back in those days, there was a lot of oral story-telling from person to person before it got written down in something that survives to this day.

Myself, I'm not convinced one way or another. (Actually, I lean towards thinking he did exist, and any reference to him in whatever ancient source, even if foggy, adds somewhat to my leaning). But what I'm sure of is that there isn't any scientific and unbiased proof he existed, at least I haven't seen anything other than dubious mish-mashes.

[DonViejo]

10. It's an insult w/o the actual words...

The graffiti author is religious, wouldn't write/speak the real words. He/she is saying: "if I could, I would paint something/saying insulting to Jesus"

[Quantess]

37. "If a picture paints 1000 words then why can't I insult Jesus?"

Apologes to Bread.

[virgogal]

2. They set fire to a toilet ! Oh,the humanity.

[arcane1]

6. That's called vandalism in my book.

[The Stranger]

43. It's actually arson, and could have been murder if anyone died.

It's a good thing that they suck.

[AngryAmish]

13. After drinking Old Style all day, I have...

The gags write themselves.

[Scootaloo]

20. Well, I guess that makes it okay, then.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Would you snicker if they burned a bathroom in your house? n/t

[virgogal]

36. Of course not,but I doubt the press would cover it either.

[mountain grammy]

5. Geez, just when Bibi is about to address the uber Christian Republicans

in Congress. My oh my, how will he explain, being a Jewish extremist himself.

[dembotoz]

9. what it had to be those muslims guys--those are the only bad guys there!!!!!!

better add the

[JI7]

12. a Jewish person torched a christian church because a mosque was torched ?

[starroute]

17. Or the same people torched both the mosque and the church

At least, that's what the story seems to imply.

[Journeyman]

14. I'm certainly glad all these ambitious people have their faith to keep themselves centered. . .

Lord knows what they'd do to the world's toilets if they didn't have such a loving influence in their lives.

[pinto]

15. Violent extremism isn't a facet of any one single group.

We can all cite examples through history - way back then to now - of things like this happening. I'm boggled why it is so.

They say time heals all wounds. I wish it were so.

[fingrin]

18. Sadly is anyone truly surprised?

This has become all too common in Israel from "Price tag" Attacks to spitting on Catholic Priests in Jerusalem. (Google can sometimes be your friend)
“Graffiti insulting Jesus”, police spokeswoman Luba Samri said, describing it as a “nationalist” attack.
BULLSHITE Lets call it for what it is, an attack on the Catholic religion or as I like to call it A.C.T.
Anti Catholic Terrorism.
Its hardly surprising the exact details of the "Graffiti" has been suppressed at the request of the Police until March 4th.
The most common Graffiti is "Mary was a whore"

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Mouths-filled-with-hatred

American Jewish Committee's Rabbi David Rosen, Israel's most prominent Jewish interfaith activist. "I hate to say it, but we've grown accustomed to this. Jewish religious fanatics spitting at Christian priests and nuns has become a tradition," said Roman Catholic Father Massimo Pazzini, sitting inside the Church of the Flagellation on the Via Dolorosa. These are the very opposite of isolated incidents. Father Athanasius of the Christian Information Center called them a "phenomenon." George Hintlian, the unofficial spokesman for the local Armenian community and former secretary of the Armenian Patriarchate, said it was "like a campaign."

[potone]

23. Did you read the article?

It was an attack on a Greek Orthodox seminary, not a Roman Catholic church.

[Coventina]

28. Beat me to it.

No excuse for confusing the two, considering they've been separate entities since 1054.

[fingrin]

29. If you had read the link

you would see that discrimination against all religions is rife in Israel. Arson attacks, to spitting and abusing the archbishop of Milan and other religious figures almost on a daily basis with no action taken by authorities despite numerous complaints.

[fingrin]

30. Semantics really

Any insult against Jesus is an attack on Catholics as well as he is recognized as the main man.

[Coventina]

32. Oh please. The difference between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is not "semantics."

The vandalism was a crime against an Orthodox establishment.

An "insult against Jesus" is not an attack on anyone but Jesus, and I think he can take care of himself.

[liberalhistorian]

27. And yet those

extremists would be the first to scream about anti-semitism. And those who say or do nothing about it are just as guilty. And six billion of our tax dollars annually goes to support this?

[leftynyc]

31. Find them

Try them, convict them and lock them up. I'm guessing the Israel government will NOT be throwing them a parade and giving their families money. Just a guess.

[candelista]

33. I have a hard time believing this.

Jewish terrorists have blown stuff up (e.g., a chunk of the King David Hotel), but attacking Christians is not in their usual playbook. Actually, I can't think of a single case. Can anyone?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. There's a history of attacks on Christians by extremists...

From May last year:

Christians in Israel and Palestine fear rise in violence ahead of pope's visit

Christians in Israel and Palestine fear an escalation of violence against them after a spate of vandalism in Jerusalem churches by hardline Jewish nationalists ahead of Pope Francis's visit this month.

Earlier this week vandals wrote "Death to Arabs and Christians" in Hebrew on the Vatican's Notre Dame centre in Jerusalem's Old City and on Thursday night offensive graffiti was written on a wall close to the Romanian Orthodox church.

Pope Francis is due to stay at the Notre Dame centre during his two-day trip to Jerusalem and Bethlehem from 24 to 26 May.

Both incidents come just weeks after a spate of attacks against Christians in Galilee, where a place of worship was vandalised and stones thrown at pilgrims. A radical rabbi also sent a threatening letter to a priest in Nazareth.

<snip>

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/christians-israel-palestine-rise-violence-pope-visit

[candelista]

40. Thanks for the info, which is disturbing.

+1

[LibertyLover]

34. I wonder how right wing fundamentalist Christian groups

here in the US who support Israel are going to say about this. Oh, wait. . . it was a Greek Orthodox church. No problem - they're not Real Christians (tm) anyway.