School apologizes for burning New Testament

Jersualem Post ^ | December 25, 2001 | Shoshana Kordova

[madrussian]

I wouldn't dismiss it simply as a "stupid thing". While that was really stupid to do in terms of relationship with the Christians, the sentiment, I think, is genuine.

Consider this

Appreciates piece on Chanukah

POSTED: Dec. 21, 2001 4:51 p.m.

Thanks for the article, "WNC's small Jewish community to celebrate festival of lights," (AC-T, Dec. 8) about Chanukah. Thanks so much for taking time out to highlight this important holiday for our Jewish community. Perhaps, in the future, you might want to re-word dates when talking about a Jewish event. The Maccabee revolt happened in 165 B.C.E. (Before Common Era) to those it matters most to; saying 165 B.C. (Before Christ) is a bit of a smack in the face.

Jeremy Russom,

Asheville

[BrooklynGOP]

...and that agenda would be? I was shocked. I tell you SHOCKED, to learn that Jewish teachers in Israel would actually burn the New Testament in front of their students...

Teachers? Plural? Are you ready to present us with another case where this has happened? I thought so. There's your agenda.

[BrooklynGOP]

said exactly what I meant, and the Jews didn't throw the Bible in the garbage, they burned it, in front of a class of children. Don't deny it.

Uh. I made a hypothetical case. You replied to it as if my hypothetical case was about burning the new testament. Read again.

[BrooklynGOP]

Are you serious, I don't have anything against Jews but that statement is ridiculous.

Oh, right. I forgot. Throughout history Jews didn't rest, but converted anyone and everyone they could find to Judaism. /sarcasm.

[BrooklynGOP]

As I resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, I found the statement amusing too.

Democrats using eldrely Jews for their own causes has nothing to do with Judaism the religion. But you already knew that.

[BrooklynGOP]

No, I agree, that would never happen, I don't think. I wasn't referring to that.

Then you agree that your post was out of context.

[BrooklynGOP]

If you are referring to these particular Jews, how do you intend to collect? If you are referring to Jews as a group, I think they paid that price, if you will, in Germany, in the 1940's.

Why 1940's? What about everything else before that? The problem with holocaust is that people spend so much time on it, that it basically wipes any history that Jews had prior to that.

[BrooklynGOP]

What's wrong with that? They taught us in college the same thing.. That before current era might be used instead of before christ..

[madrussian]

Is there a difference between "might be" and "must be"?

Thanks for confirming how you sympathize with the de-Christionizing forces in America.

[BrooklynGOP]

Is there a difference between "might be" and "must be"?

My english might be a little rusty. But I believe that "might" means that something is optional, and "must" is something that's required. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for confirming how you sympathize with the de-Christionizing forces in America.

Oh I see. So now I am getting blamed for something that a Christian teacher taught me in college? Yay, blame the Jews.

[madrussian]

Are you being disenginuous, again?

The "must be" sentiment is in the letter to which you replied "what's wrong with might be?"

[dlt]

The BC/BCE thing is really about being politically correct, which I think has gotten out of hand. If we refer to a Muslim event, should we refer to Muslim calendar notations? If we refer to a Chinese event, should we refer to the Chinese calendar notations?

I vigorously support freedom of regligion and strong separation of church and state, but "BC" is the traditional American way of dating events when we talk about history in our country. Where does it stop, if we try to accommodate every ethnic group which makes up our country?

[BrooklynGOP]

The "must be" sentiment is in the letter to which you replied "what's wrong with might be?"

Since you have trouble quoting, I'll do it for you:

What's wrong with that? They taught us in college the same thing.. That before current era might be used instead of before christ..

And since you have trouble comprehending I'll explain it to you to. I expressed my lack of surprise at your post, because the CE/BCE business is not specific to Jews or whatever - it was even taught to me in college ( I went to a state univ of NY @ Albany) by a non Jew in a non religious class. That if we come across CE/BCE, it means this n that. I am not sure why you are trying to make more of it then it is... Misquoting me and etc, and I am sure it would be a lot of fun to speculate as to why... But I guess I am not a fun loving guy, like you are. I'll leave all the speculating to you and your friends.

[madrussian]

The letter said:

The Maccabee revolt happened in 165 B.C.E. (Before Common Era) to those it matters most to; saying 165 B.C. (Before Christ) is a bit of a smack in the face.

You wrote:

What's wrong with that?

And then some irrelevant stuff about how they can be interchanged.

Talk about playing dumb. Or are you playing, at all?

[madrussian]

The BC/BCE thing is really about being politically correct, which I think has gotten out of hand. If we refer to a Muslim event, should we refer to Muslim calendar notations? If we refer to a Chinese event, should we refer to the Chinese calendar notations?

Of course not. But, apparently, any reference to Jesus Christ is insulting to many Jews. Can't allow that, can we?

[BrooklynGOP]

What's wrong with that? And then some irrelevant stuff about how they can be interchanged.

I was referring to the whole BC/BCE concept. What's more I even mentioned that it was taught to me in college, just so you would know that I wasn't discussing this _particular_ case.

[BrooklynGOP]

The BC/BCE thing is really about being politically correct, which I think has gotten out of hand. If we refer to a Muslim event, should we refer to Muslim calendar notations? If we refer to a Chinese event, should we refer to the Chinese calendar notations?

Of course not. But, apparently, any reference to Jesus Christ is insulting to many Jews. Can't allow that, can we?

Huh? So Jews are the sole reason that CE/BCE thing came about? It wasn't the atheists? Muslims? Hindus? Budhists? etc.etc.etc. Right away its Jews.. Yay, blame the Jews! Bei zhidov, spasai Rossiu?

[madrussian]

I was referring to the whole BC/BCE concept.

If you were refering to the concept, you certainly didn't spend any effort to mention that you weren't refering to the letter when you wrote "What's wrong with that?", to which you responded.

[madrussian]

Huh? So Jews are the sole reason that CE/BCE thing came about? It wasn't the atheists? Muslims? Hindus? Budhists?

Now you are grasping.

etc.etc.etc. Right away its Jews.. Yay, blame the Jews! Bei zhidov, spasai Rossiu?

Whine, whine, whine.

[BrooklynGOP]

Hmmmm... Seems like we are using BCE/CE and you didn't even know about it (blame the Jews!!!):

The Common Era Choice Explained

The reason that the timeline uses the common era dating system is simple, it's accurate.

For those who are not sure what CE and BCE means, it's simple. BCE stands for Before Common Era, which is every year before the year 0. After the year 0 is the Common Era, or CE.

I know many are saying "before 0 is BC, and after 0 is AD". But that is actually wrong, the origin of Common Era is not a plot to take Christ out of the calendar, but is really a way to keep him in. The BC/AD system came into play before the actual date of Christ's birth was known. Due to the fact that Jesus was not born in the year 0, as previously thought there were two options. Change what year we were in at the time of discovery by 6 years, or create the Common Era system.

Because AD is "the year of our lord", that would make 1 AD, actually 5 years before the year 0. So as I type this it is the year 2000 CE, or 2006 AD.

I opted for the CE dating system because if I went with AD things that happened recently would be marked in the wrong year. Such as Adolf Hiler would have been in poer from 1941-1951 AD, or Columbus would have crossed the Atlantic in 1498 AD. I felt this would have only made the timeline confusing and appear erroneous.