And, of course, the Jewish people themselves were not immune to this tendency. They were very anti-Samaritan. Remember the parable of the (one) good Samaritan?
Very much so, at least from my experience in Penang, Malaysia. I worked with Chinese, Indian and Malay people. When they found out that I was Jewish, the Indians didn’t care, many of the Malay kept me at a distance and the Chinese tended to want to bond with me. They really let me into their inner circle. Singapore likes to call itself the Israel of SE Asia.
Where are you getting “evil serial killer”? Barabbas was sentenced to crucifixion for being involved in an insurrection or an affray.
Hmmmmm. For some reason I had it in my head that he was a serial killer. Or mass murderer. Or had killed loads of people.
Well, yeah. The belief was that this actually happened.
Also, that all Jews, and all their descendants, were equally responsible.
Aw, forget it.
Except that they were NOT persecuted for having been Jews but those who were persecuted were persecuted for being Christians who practiced things forbidden to Christians. The Inquisition only had jurisdiction over Christians. It had no jurisdiction over Jews or Muslims. Those persecuted were persecuted because they were Christians. Now, you could say They were forced to convert or leave the country so they converted under duress and so it is not surprising some converted outwardly while continuing to practice Judaism in private and, by doing so risked life and limb. Like this was unique to Spain at that time. This was the norm rather than the exception all over Europe at that time and much later. Spain was no worse than most other European countries.
Muslims and Jews might be not the best friends in the Middle East but they have co-existed peacefully for centuries in other parts of the world, including the Mahgreb.
ETA: I was responding to the post as it was before editing and which said something about Malaysians being Muslims and not getting along with Jews.
I think this is how the Passion of Christ is described in the Gospel of John. But from what I’ve heard, John was written at a time (late 1st century) when relations between Jews and the nascent Christian sect weren’t very good, and Christians were actively trying to convert Romans. Thus, they wanted to downplay the Romans’ role in the execution of Jesus while exacerbating the Jews’ role. The other gospels don’t accuse the Jews as much.
In reality, Pontius Pilate was a ruthless SOB; contemporary non-Biblical accounts describe how he was governing Judea with an iron fist and how he was even eventually recalled to Rome because his bosses thought his kind of rule would cause a rebellion. It’s very likely he and only he decided that crucifying Jesus was a good idea.
That whole story is most like likely libel after the fact. Even if it’s true, at best a courtyard full of people did this. Why should a totally different group of people, thousands of years later, most of whom weren’t even directly descended from those guys be blamed.
All of whom are dead by now.
Do you also hold it against me that my dead grandfather liked to tell nigger jokes?
And here’s where I go out on a limb and cite a cookbook of medieval recipies redacted from the files of the Spanish Inquisition. How accurate the book is, I don’t know. But they were able to get descriptions of meals and eating practices from court records that had gotten people arrested, usually when neighbors or servants turned them in. The descriptions of the meals were entered into testimony against them.
There was no separation between religious practices and cultural practices. If you kept eating Jewish, you were guilty of being Jewish. This especially applied to not cooking on Saturdays or to making mistakes with keeping track of Christian meatless days. But you could also end up being tried if your diet included too many/much chickpeas and/or chard, just because that had been identified ethnically with Jewish cuisine.
The Inquisition collated lists of suspicious dietary practices and distributed them widely. Ironically, this helped one group of Jews, at least according to the book. They were children of Conversos who emigrated to the new world in order to become brazenly Jewish again. Unfortunately, their parents hadn’t passed on any of their old cooking information. So they turned to the lists of suspicious dietary practices to reclaim their heritage.
So it was entirely possible to convert, and do your best to fit in, but end up being tried for backsliding over things that were really non-religious - if David M. Gitlitz and Linda Kay Davidson did their research properly. And you couldn’t be tried for backsliding if you were born Christian, so eating meat on the wrong days would get you penance if you’d been Christian and get you arrested if you’d once been Jewish. Meaning they were being persicuted for having been Jews.
Since we have very few non-Biblical accounts of Jesus’ existence, it’s quite possible and even probable that he never existed at all, and that the Biblical accounts of his life are conflations of a whole bunch of people who claimed to be prophets and so on. At any rate, we don’t have enough evidence to convict, so to speak.
They co-exist peacefully in the Mahgreb (and elsewhere) because Islam is the dominant culture there. They don’t co-exist peacefully in the Levant because of Arab/Muslim anger (where justified or not) over the creation of Israel and its subsequent expansion.
It was a crowd containing many of their community leaders at the time.
Anyway, the point is, it was the Jewish powers in the area who killed him.
I don’t think that anyone today believes that modern Jews could be held accountable for that crime though (if it happened like that)
So? It was still tiny minority of all of the Jews who were alive at the time. The Jews in Rome at the time varied just as much in their political beliefs and religious practices as they do today.
No it wasn’t. By any account it wasn’t.
You don’t get out much, do you?
I do not believe that. Their not eating certain things, especially pork, was taken as a sign that thaeir conversion was not legitimate. This was not a question of “he still likes chick peas” as much as “his diet, especially his refusal to eat foods forbidden to Jews, is one more indications that he continues to be a practicing Jew, which added to the other indications like his not being sufficiently pious in Church, etc all indicate his conversion was a sham”.
The Inquisition was just as eager to persecute any Christian believed to be guilty of heresy and there were more than a few witch hunts. It was the way things were done in all of Europe at that time and the Inquisition was not substantially worse, notwithstanding what English propaganda of the time and later may have said.
The Inquisition, because it had jurisdiction over all the separate kingdoms of Spain, was used like the FBI, where the national authorities could not get to, and so things like horse traders with the French were prosecuted by the Inquisition on account that they were “aiding heretics”. It was a legal subterfuge just like authorities may use today.
It is ironic that centuries later you could say quite similar things about the American government. Post 9/11 Muslims were rounded up and detained by the thousands and I remember a photograph of some crossing into Canada at night, in the snow, due to their fears. Maybe they were technically not being persecuted strictly speaking for being Muslim but because of a number of factors which went together with being Muslim.
Also for example foreigners who marry American citizens have to prove they fully intend it to be a real marriage and not a way of gaining some advantage. So they have to prove things no one else has to prove. Sort of like Jews having to prove their conversions were not a sham.
What makes you say that?
Sure people will tell jokes (most of the time not really understanding them), but I’ve never met anyone who actually hated Jews for being Jews.
EDIT: You do understand that I’m from Ireland and (pograms aside) we generally don’t have the same facist tendancies as other countries? There are maybe twenty full-time neo-nazis in Ireland, and most of them are harmless.
You find it surprising that somebody who hadn’t eaten pork for thirty years might not want to eat pork?
How does that answer what I said? It does not follow.
You claimed above that the conversions were considered a sham because they stuck to Jewish dietary practices.