Reply's to concerns by 4get_me, nightrider and tayoD in the thread Why Did Adolph Hitler Hate Jews So Much?will follow here.
Stay tuned

I'm waiting.

Well, you'll have to wait a little more. As you don't seem to take my word for it, I've got to get my sources together and dive into the nity gritty details. The other thread takes my priority, though.

Just a quickie

TayoD:

"Thus, my next two posts are just there to clarify my position and to explain why anti-semitism does have new testamentic roots, "

nfern,

How can you claim that anti-semitism has a new testament root when we see clearly from the Old Testament that it existed as far back as the days of Esther the Queen and Modecai her uncle. You'll get the details in the Book of Esther.

Contrary to the context of the New Testament, The Old Testament is either entirely mythical (Exodus) or events are blown way out of proportion (2nd captivity). The Old Testament can hardly be called a reliable history book. The hardships the Jewish people had to endure before the 2nd destruction of the Temple were very comparable to what other peoples had to endure and the anti-Judaism that predated Christianity was mainly directed against monotheism in general, it was very different from the Christian anti-Judaism and not really relevant, because it did not lead to the the racial concept of anti-semitism.

TayoD:

If not for God's intervention, the Jewish people would have been wiped out by then. The anti-semitist spirit at work in those days was the same at work in Hitler, and it is the same one still at work today.

No. Aside from the mythical aspects of Jewish history as depicted in the Torah, it was very different in nature. I will further establish that in the other thread.

TayoD:

From a spiritual point of view, the Jews are very necessary in God's plan for the birth and the final establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom on earth (first and second coming respectively). With this insight, I believe the spirit of anti-semitism is actually the spirit of the Anti-Christ, because the ultimate goal is to resist Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy.

Eactly. That's why the Jews in Christian Europe under the bane of anti-judaism were persecuted, excluded, ostracised, , but never was there an intention to exterminate the Jews or even convert them all. It wasn't untill the Spanish Inquisition and the reconquista that the traditional Christian anti-Judaism gained a racial undertone and slowly developed into an anti-semitism with genocidal undertones.

nferyn:

Contrary to the context of the New Testament, The Old Testament is either entirely mythical (Exodus) or events are blown way out of proportion (2nd captivity). The Old Testament can hardly be called a reliable history book.

No. Aside from the mythical aspects of Jewish history as depicted in the Torah, it was very different in nature. I will further establish that in the other thread.

@nferyn,

You've further confirmed my conjecture that ideas like you've expressed take a very convenient and slanted view of history. When taking up a subject, why is it so often easy for people to just style off the Old Testament as "entirely mythical" or "blown way out of proportion"? Do you really understand Jewish history, or that, too, is entirely mythical?

I understand that you're trying to clarify your position; but it seems to me that you're rather trying to justify your position with the weathered and worn excuse that Jewish history is fictional. Without rancour to your person, I consider such interpretations a disservice to the Jewish people and a classic display of anti-semitism in contemporary times.

This type of perspective on the Jews is still actively pursued today, and people have come up to lay the blame largely on Christianity and fixated its roots in the NT. For example, the British historian, David Irving is one of many active historians who tried to recast the history of the Jewish people by once insisting that "Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of six million Jews," claiming that there was "not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis carried out their Final Solution on such a scale. What is interesting is not Irving's denial of historical facts - rather, it's the wonder that people believe him! Oh, but of course, it should not be surprising; afterall, David Irving was regarded as a respected historian and author with nearly thirty books to his name, and people who are looking for a convenient denial of true Jewish history are bound to take his word and works as authoritative.

What I'm trying to say here is that books indeed exist that try to "prove" that the history of the Jews is a myth. What you don't realise is that those books and sources are recasting historical facts, denying real antecedents, and keeping the contemporary European anti-semitic campaign alive.

In all, that's your personal position, and I respect it - but it is conveniently ignoring reality.

Regards.

4get_me,

I find rather distasteful to say the least to compare me with the revisionist historian and Holocaust denier David Irving. I do hope you find the courage to excuse yourself for casting me in the same basket as such a vile figure.

1. I do not say that Jewish history is fictional. You seem to say that the old testament is Jewish History. Very different things
2. The Old Testament is not a historiographical work. It contains some historical truths, but taken as a whole, it cannot pass the test of historical criticism
3. Exodus is entirely mythical. There is no evidence that confirms the existence of Moses, the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt or the return of all of them back to Israel.
4. Comparing the rejection of the historicity of the Old Testament with the rejection of the historicity of the Holocaust is showing your lack of understanding (and empathy) of the Jewish experience. Talk to any not strictly orthodox Jew and you will know why
5. For a history of the Jewish people, turn to a history book, not to a religious one. The Sacred Chain by Norman Cantor would be a good start.

nferyn,

First, as gentlemen, I owe you an apology if you felt aggrieved by my response. Everyone feels one way or the other about such a touchy topic.

In no way was I comparing you with David Irving. What in fact I wrote was that Irving's denial of historical facts is not the paramount issue for me, but it's amazing that people would believe him at all. The conclusion I drew was that books exists which try to "prove" Jewish history a myth, and my call was for the understanding that all sides should be examined legitimately instead of taking a convenient interpretation from only one side - a political one, for instance.

We are speaking about a people whose history is mainly religious, on a religio-political basis - why is it just convenient that we turn to history books and disfavour religious ones? The early Church Fathers you'd like to quote in your position made statements of a religious nature; why are you prone to see their statements as authentic enough to address your position, but not the religious books that undergird their ideologies?

The broad statement that the Old Testament is "either entirely mythical or events are blown way out of proportion" seems to indicate to me that history is not given a fair and balanced review; for no matter how you look at it, you cannot entirely throw the Old Testament overboard in order to reach a good understand of the history of the Jews.

Again, whatever you say only shows your own position; it would not actually be taken as reflecting the real history of the Jewish people. Whether or not people blame anti-semitism on Christianity, you cannot deny the fact that the general political feeling of most Europeans is anti-semitic without even having to fixate their reason for this in the NT.

Regards.

4get_me,

I accept you apology. I have several friends and acquaintances that are negatively affected by the Holocaust. It is a touchy subject for me. The fact that you casually used a Holocaust denier to bring your points accross would indicate that you do not fully appreciate the sensitivity of the subject. I would be surprised if a gentleman like yourself would willingly make that connection.

Anyway, when discussing history, you use data from historical research. The religious angle is relevant in discussing Jewish history, but mainly to provide context to their worldviews and experiences, not as having a factual relevance, unless either other sources support the statements made in the religious literature or they have a certain level of probability to have occured within a given historical context. Precisely because of these reasons, the Torah cannot be considered to be a factual transcript of Jewish history (even without it's religious context).

So, let me be clear: I do not throw the Torah overboard when it comes to examining the historical context and worldviews of the Jewish people. That would be a foolish thing to do. As a student of history though, I do not consider the Torah as factually very relevant.

As to the European anti-semitism, I precisely want to show that, even though it had religious roots (in the NT, but more in the way Christian positions concerning Judaism and Jews evolved in Europe), in a largly secular Europe, it no longer needs it's historical roots to perpetuate.

By the way, I do not turn to the church fathers for factual historical data, that would be a foolish thing to do. The authenticity of those religious books and writings lies in the experience they represent, not in their factual accuracy. Factuality cannot be taken as an a priori, but needs to be established first.

Thanks for setting clear your points, nferyn, with respect to the perspective from which you'd be discussing the topic.

I agree with you about discussing history with data from historical research - and that equally applies to making recourse to religious texts, especially when they reference historical antecedents. The latter are not ancillary to what one would consider "historical data", and any balanced view on the subject would not simply write them off as untenable for the sake of convenience.

Again, please understand that my making any reference to the Holocaust does not indicate a lack of sensitivity to the subject: in fact, it is the very opposite of what you suppose. Jews in diaspora may not tell you everything about their ancient history, but it is clear that any discussion that misrepresents the terms used (such as anti-semitism) is as likely to evoke the same feeling of disaffection. It was undiluted anti-semitism that led to the Holocaust, and Hitlerism is not the same thing as Christianity, for those who feel the calm of conscience to shift the blame on the latter. I'm still left confused that "Why Did Hitler Hate Jews So Much" should very widely be blamed on Christianity and the NT. As a gentleman, you would not want me to believe you're making that connection without realising that more than the Jews are likely to be affected negatively. It's like saying, "Hitler hated Jews so much - blame it on Christianity and the NT!"

Why are some of us persuaded that anti-semitism should not be largely blamed on Christianity and the NT? For the simple reason that the roots of anti-semitism and anti-Judaism predate Christianity - and it is this very fact that a lot of historians vigorously try to ignore for the convenience of cushioning their interpretation of historical antecedents. It is not a wonder anymore, therefore, that political history tries to rubbish the Torah as "entirely mythical" so that it seems the phenomenon of this topic is synonymous with the Christian faith.

This in no way stops you from making your points in the Forum. A lot of people have different perspectives on the subject, and you may be surprised that so many people do not need Chrsitianity or the NT to be passionately anti-semitic.

Many thanks for your patience, and I'll respect whatever views you express.

4get_me,

I think you may unconsciously want to see motivations on my part that are not there. I do not hate Christianity and do not want to discard information in it's favor. I am not arguing from an anti-christian impulse here.

It's historical research that either validates or disproves historical claims in religious literature. I am in no way advocating that the claims from religious literature should be a priori discarded, on the contrary, they should be examined using proper historiographical methodologies. These texts are primary source material and should be regarded as such, but they should in no way be treated differently from non-religious source material.

M claims are based on historical research and when I use the term mythical, I mean that these claims have not been historically validated.

I will be making the case that anti-judaism (mainly originating in the Christian p.o.v. regarding Jews and their religion) led to anti-semitism (racially motivated). There would not have been a Holocaust without the Christian anti-judaistic antecedents.

Does this mean that all Christians or a majority of Christians are anti-semitic? Not in the least.
Does this mean that Christianity necessarily had to lead to the holocaust? Neither.
What made the holocaust possible was a cascade of events, interpretations, policies, , some religiously motivated, some not, but the religious justification was [b]paramount [/b]in the perpetuation of anti-Jewish feelings among the European poulations. It's a classical abuse of religion to justify ostracism and persecution and many prominent Christians have to accept their part of the blame. You cannot shout fire [/i]in a crowded theatre and afterwards reject responsibility for people being trampled to death. Christians have historically been shouting fire too many times to put all the blame on the Nazi [i]tramplers

Nothing new, nferyn.

I should not be tedious to you on your exercise, so that you can devote some time to the other thread where you'd wanted to state your views. Good to note, however, that what you've been trying to refute is unconsciously established in your last response: since Hitler hated Jews so much, Christianity should be blamed for shouting fire as impetus for Nazi trampling. Great - but that still does not negate the fact that secular Europe today has many people in various circles who don't need the shouting of fire from Christians to display unbelievable anti-semitism.

Regards.

nferyn,
Can you tell us what is true and what is false in the Old Testament? Your arguments sounds so much like that of Prophet Mohammed. The only way he was able to have so many followers (apart from the house of the sword) was by claiming the Bible had been corrupted.
That is such a convenient route to go in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
No peoples on earth have their history well documented as the Jews, and to suggest that Moses may not even be real, sounds close to the new arguments I hear about Jesus today. Many are saying their is almost no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Same story from the same crowd.
But assuming the stories in the Book of Esther are true, will you still maintain the same stance?

Your arguments sounds so much like that of Prophet Muhammad. The only way he was able to have so many followers (apart from the house of the sword) was by claiming the Bible had been corrupted.

Which "house of sword"? Tayo D, can you hear your idiotic self? What kind of rubbish are you insinuatiing? You lack sense of historical facts that you made a whimsical allegation! Could one man alone have done what the Holy Prophet did if not by Allah's leave? What sword? The Persians were a ferocious and powerful people -- it only took a piece of letter (dictated to one of believers) that was sent to Kosros (the Persian emperor), inviting him to the religion of al-Islam. What sword? Prophet Muhammad took Mecca and gave everyone amnesty -- when they were all vulnerable and powerless! What sword? Did any Islamic soldier ever land in Malaysia, Singapore, nad Indonesia? Are they are all Muslim countries or not? When the christian army of about 50,000 strong was supposed to meet the Islamic army of only 3,000 soldiers (led by Prophet Muhammad) in Syria, why didn't they show up? Oh, it was Muhammad's sword, right? What sword? Uthman Dan Fodio's Hausa'Fulani's campaign notwithstanding, did any Islamic army invade Nigeria before we accepted Islam in Nigeria and other places in Black Africa? What sword? Maybe you don't know, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States of America; inspite of what George Bush and the christian fundamentalists are doing to discredit it! when the Muslims conquered Europe, it was done by spreading knowledge and engaging in commerce. Remember, Muslims gave to the world all that you enjoy in science today. Without calculus, biology and chemistry there'll be nothing -- we gave them all to the world. Read your history.

Ajisafe,

It is obvious that you have an anger management issue which is typical of any one in the evil religion you profess. I'm not surprised because the author and finisher of your faith was a sword wielding peadophile who has no regards for life.

When you are able to control your anger and have read some posts such as "What lessons Moslems should learn from the Davinci Code," then I will more than defend my statements. If you choose to continue calling people names, then you are on your own. We've had sane discussions up until this time without a hot-blooded Jihadists coming in to heat things up.

It is obvious that you have an anger management issue which is typical of any one in the evil religion you profess.  I'm not surprised because the author and finisher of your faith was a sword wielding peadophile who has no regards for life.

Anger management? Apparently, you need a membership in AA (alcohol annonymous).
What is it with you polytheistic animals? You're quick to call people evil whereas no mortal is as diabolical as you. Evil creatures! They're the ones with weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, napalm, 'shock & awe' bombs, apache helicopters, F-series fighter planes, Bradley fighting vehicles, humvees, Abraham tanks etc, yet they're quick to call the hapless stone-throwers "terrorists." What is the real meaning of TERRORISM? Yours is a denigrated and disgraced religion of evil but, still you want to call Islam evil?  Unlike Saul/Paul who was the "author and finisher" of your diabolic faith, Allah -- the one and only Creator of the Universe -- is the Author and Finisher of the Deen of al-Islam. Your European god, "Jesus" didn't even know anything about christianity. That evil religion was formed fraudulently by Paul -- if you didn't know before now you do. Shame on you!
Brainlesss, TayoD, all I'm trying to tell you and other judeo-christian fools is that Islam was not propagated by the tip of the sword as you are wont to believe. Empires that were not of God had vanished into thin air. Kubla Khan tried to build a formidable Mongol empire when he routed the whole of Asia. Where is he today? Gone! Where is the Roman empire? Where is the Persian empire? Where are Mali, Songahi, Ghana, Benin empires? They're all gone! Why? They were all man-made! Recently, your fellow murderous, christian terrorist, Richard "the Lion-Hearted" tried to conquer Jerusalem and build a christian evil empire; having routed all the Muslims (women, feeble old men, and children), he still was not able to hold still. Why? He was not of God. And Sallahudeen, who was of God, was able to overpower him and his evil christian army. But Salahudeen tempered justice with mercy and spared the life of the christian faithful. The only reason for the phenomenal spread of Islam is because Allah is its guide and guardian. Take note, chicken-heads.

Some adherents of the various religions of the world poorly represent their faiths. To them, there's a necessary conotation of hate and kill in the practise of their tenets; but I would not necessarily take my definition from such. Same with Islam. I do not define the Islamic faith as an evil religion necessarily: not because I have loads of Muslim friends; but because the notion of 'Islam' of which Ajisafe is a vendor, does not tally with what my Muslim friends have shown me in the Qur'an.

Do you care to quote a verse for your misinformation about this:

Ajisafe:

Saul/Paul who was the "author and finisher" of your diabolic faith,

We don't mind your foaming in the mouth, but at least be true to your unnecessarily vexed and hate-killer soul.

Ajisafe again !! dem take am do you?? (is it encoded in your DNA?) why! why! why! can't you just be a gentleman?? and have a civil discussion?? why do you always have to fly off the handle?? honestly, you need prayers, fasting, flogging--whatever it will take to make you a man of peace, as obviously you're not! Plus, how'd you get into this post sef? it's almost you have a "Mohammed" sensor in you, any where Mohammed is mentioned, you're sure expected to be there insulting people for voicing their opinions. Plus, i'd have expected Christians to be the ones reading this. You have nothing positive to contribute, but you jump-fly in here to cause havoc, dude it's a spirit o!!

Nwoke o!!!!!!! biko (please), do something about this now! haba! do you want there to be bloodshed on Nairaland?? you know we can't all get along when the Ajisafe's write like this!

_{Thinking "hope Ajisafe doesn't have my address? wonder if i'm save tonight!"}

LOL! Honestly. Anyway, if you care to know, I don't have "Muhammad's sensor" in me. I happen to be a blessing to the Deen of al-Islam, that's all. I am neither a sycophant nor a timid hypocrite. I don't normally go off -- if you know what I mean. The hypocritical christians (especially the Nigerian 'wannabes" make me sick. They deem it necessary and OK to insult Islam, Muslims, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, at will. And if you try to correct them they either call you a "terrorist" or ask you to "just be a gentleman." Why is it OK for you christians and jews to assail our character and when we dare say anything you start name-tagging us? There are so many postings that I'll just read through and be like: whatever. But when you people go too far, relishing in your stupidity, that's when I give it to you. Like when that idiot TayoD wrote that fantastic lie about Prophet Muhammad, OK?

Ajisafe, you're no better than the people you're trying to reprove for their so called lies! you only prove them right when you go off like that. I've never seen you peaceful on ANY post that you've been involved in. I'm a Christian, and i've not referred to anything but your character, but yet you've gone ahead and generalized all Christians as "Stupid," does that make you any different from those that call muslims "terrorists?" I don't know the teachings of Mohammed, but i'd like to think he won't appreciate you calling TayoD "idiotic." You need to be more peaceful. I am the one who said you should be a "gentleman" there's nothing stupid about me! mind you, my grandpa was an imam, and never did i hear him speak harshly as i've ever read you write.

You almost write as if if you find the person that's spoken against your religion you'll deal thoroughly with the person. Makes me wonder if you have a matchet in your pocket , well do you? bottom line, you don't have to go off the top at every opportunity you get. Ever heard of "he who angers you controls you?" so please, put your holy anger in check.

Ajisafe,

I do not even want to give you the honor of a reply. You talk about name-tagging.  Maybe you should go back and find out who started the name tagging on this thread.  Or do you suffer from amnesia on top of your anger?  Kai, I hope you do not have access to a cutlass easily.  You might end up chopping of peoples heads and forget you ever did it.  Onyioshi, Onyiara, Onyikpetese!!!!!!!!!!!

Dearzi,

I'm actually in the twin cities.

Birds of the same feathers flock together. Not only are you people going into damnation together, you both reside in a very cold environment. No wonder why your brains are frozen that you misbehave.

At least we're both sure of where we'd be going--a place you have no concept of--a place of true peace and everlasting worship. If you call me to dip my finger in the water to cool your tongue, i don't know what i'll do to you! All that ablution better keep you cool when you're smoking in hell. Dude, i'm not even going to waste my time on you anymore--you're just a waste of good soil, and energy.

@TayoD

St Paul or Minneapolis? i go to church in Minneapolis.

I live and go to church in Brooklyn Park. I work in Fridley, so I'm usually within a 10 mile radius between work, home and school except when I go to school @ the U of M.

Serious?? tight. What church do you go to? i live 3hrs away from the cities, so come in every weekend to fellowship with the saints. U of M--tight! studying what?

Studying christian terrorism and messianic fundamentalism

Ajisafe, at this point, you're amusing me. I think under all your viciousness, you have a sense of humor. I won't speak much before you go and burn my father's house down!

Oh, I'm a very humorous person -- folks have told me so many times. I'll make you laugh in a beat. The only thing that gets me ticked is religious discussion. Because life is full of hypocrites. And I hate the hypocrites.

Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. Part tion'tme.

I dont blame that fool. I blame Microsoft for making the internet dummy-friendly so fools like him could rant.

TayoD, tell the truth! You're at a vocational school in downtown Minneapolis, trying to obtain a certificate in Geriatric Health Aide, right?