http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/...ning/index.html

Given the events that led up to World War II, is anyone else creeped out by the idea of Jews burning books?

no person is as ignorant as when they are engaged with religion'

like taking a dumb pill

I am. Apparently so are some mainsteam Jewish groups, the Israeli police, and the deputy mayor of the city it occured in.

From the article you linked to:

It's payback after 800 years.

Louis IX ordered 12,000 copies of the Talmud to be burned in 1243 in Paris.

I'm just kidding, but that did happen.

Yeah I don't like this either. I understand the concern about "messianic Jews" proselytizing in Israel, but you just can't go burning holy books.

Edit: I put "messianic Jews" in quotes because they are not Jews. "Messianic Jews" are Christians who have appropriated Jewish symbology and misappropriated Jewish theology in a sometimes devious effort to convert Jews to Christianity. Me no likey.

Jews for Judaism

One of the apostles (Paul?) said that any lie that results in a conversion is acceptable to God. It's practically canon.

Gotta agree with that!!

My understanding of "messianic Jews" is different...cultural/ethnic Jews who accept that Jesus is/was/whatever the Messiah. Some groups like Jews for Jesus do tend to hang out with the types of Christians you're talking about, though.

Hundreds of Bibles burned in Israel??? So what???

How many Jews were killed because of Christianity since Christ' time??? Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell?

Trying to incite the populace are you?

Okay, please provide a link.

(Paul never said this)

I'll have to get back to you on that. As I said, I don't recall who said it, but it was either one of the apostles, or very early and very important theologian. Lies that result in conversions are OK.

Got Link?

NO one picked up on the
obvious...sounds like a
line out of the repuke / Neo con
playbook.

The best part of the Bible, is the New Testament. You get a real feel for what this historic figure of a man was. My favorite passage is when Mary is crying at the tomb. He walks up behind her and asks,"Why are you crying?" She starts telling him the whole story, I can picture him just saying, "Uhha, yep, really, ok, bummer, damn, that sucks, no way...." Somewhere through the story, she turns and looks at who she is talking to. I knew I liked Jesus, he is rotten. He could have walked up and said, "Hi mom!" NOPE, he let her go on to be just blown away..... SUPRISE....LOL! I can relate to this, he has a sence of humor. Why would someone be so set against such a story. Why would someone be so set against being reduced to just one commandment, be good to each other.

Or a line from Archie Bunker.

You are welcome to your opinion. Others do not have to share it.

Here is some food for thought for why some Jews might not.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ism/gibson.html

I will leave things at that, although I do not think any books should be burned.

A portion of the 'messianic Jews' are actual Jews, according to Jewish law and tradition. (many are not and just say they are.) Absolutely none of 'messianic Judaism" is Jewish. It's Christianity (or something else) disguised in some Jewish looking wrapping paper. Kind of like the German figure skaters who dressed up as hassidic Jews for an olympic performance. Didn't make them, or their skating exhibit, Jewish.

I tend to take a harder line against Messianics. I think they renounce all claims and ties to Judaism when they accept Jesus as messiah. It's idolatry, pure and simple, which is anathema to Judaism, and the two cannot be reconciled. As soon as they become Messianics, they are no longer a part of the Jewish community, no matter their matrilineal heritage.

I agree, but I don't think halacha does. Anyway they are welcome to (honestly) correct their error.

You're probably right about halacha - but as a Reform Jew, I can pretty much ignore that.

That's not true. You could be a Jew and believe he was the "moshiach" meaning the anointed rightful king of Israel (that would mean you'd have to accept the geneaology from King David given in the New Testament; problem is most scholars don't). That's all well and good. But he would also be dead and unable to claim the throne, and I would argue that being "moshiach" just means he was a person anointed from the right oil jar. Nothing else follows, including his resurrection or divinity, which are tenets of Christianity.

This is what I tell most "Messianic" Jews. There is nothing in Judaism that says the Messiah will be anything other than a human being with a right to hold a sacred position based on descent. All that's important about him is his lineage. In fact, there should be two, a kingly Messiah descended from David, and a priestly Messiah descended from Aaron.

All that would matter would be if he had any descendants alive today -- but personally I don't tend to subscribe to this theory, although there's a recent low-budget documentary, Bloodline, which claims there are.

For the record, it was Mary Magdalen who was crying at the tome, not Mary the Mother of Jesus..

The really inane thing is this...Jesus was a Jew and loved the Jews. But some of his followers were anti-Jewish, which is also crazy, because the early Church was mostly Jews...

So, if you ever meet Jesus, let it be known that he loves Jews, as well as everyone else. Some of his followers just do not get the concept of Love Your Neighbor, and your enemies as well...

There is no "good" part of the Babble. Sorry, but the parable you mention is a total crock. It's a total nightmare of horrors. BTW, there was no jesus. Come back to reality. And there is no such Commandment as be good to each other.

Definitely not a good thing at all, but if there ever was a book that should be burned......I'm just saying.....pornography, incest, rape, slavery, murder, lies, theft, slaughter, genocide, etc., etc., etc.....certainly nothing you want any minors to be exposed to. How about just placing it in the adult fiction section, with child abuse charges against anyone allowing the Babble near a minor?

But... but... teh JEWZ KILLED JEEBUS!!!!11!1!1!!!!1!

Mel Gibson said so!

Not hardly....he was crucified, not stoned. Crucifixion was a Roman practice.

I've always felt this story had a certain spin to it, so the Romans wouldn't look so bad, especially after their conversion to Christianity.

Not to defend what they did, but to them, burning the Christian Bibles could have been seen as a mitzvah (read: commandment). Deut 7:25-26 is very explicit about this, saying, "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house, and be accursed like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a devoted thing." To Orthodox Jews, the Christian Bible is an agent of avodah zarah, or idol worship. And with the text translated into Hebrew (there are no extant texts of the Christian Bible that exist in ancient Hebrew), the intention was pretty obvious: it was meant for Jews and Jews only. That's why I'm so conflicted about it. The Torah says it right there, but it just doesn't feel right, especially with how inane other book burnings look.