Blood Libel

>A.D. 1811. A Christian woman disappeared in the Jewish quarter of Aleppo.[5]

>A.D. 1821. The Jews sacrificed a man at Beyrut.

>A.D. 1824. The Jews of Beyrut made away with Fatallah Sayegh, an Aleppine Muhammadan.

>A.D. 1829. The Jews of Hamah murdered a Muhammadan girl, and were expelled the city.

>A.D. 1834. The Jews of Tripoli were accused of murdering an Aleppine Christian.

>A.D. 1838. The Jews of Jerusalem attempted to murder a Muhammadan.

>A.D. 1839. A flask of blood passed through the Custom‑house of Beyrut.

>A.D. 1840. The Jews murdered Padre Tomaso and Ibrahím Amárah at Damascus. In the same year they made away with a Greek boy at Rhodes, a Greek boy disappeared from Corfu, and an attempt was made to murder a Muhammadan.

>A.D. 1847. The Jews crucified a Christian boy in Mount Lebanon.

These are all taken from pic related's book. How could otherwise intelligent people permit themselves to believe this shit? Sounds like something a peasant would make up.

Burton was not Christian. Your post reads like babby's first r/atheism.

>reddit spacing
>hurr dis man who studied hinduism in the orient is le christian and therefore hates jews
Thanks for playing

Maybe they did happen. We have tales of this happening since 200 bc and the istealites were known to worship moloch (golden calf) in times of trouble

I doubt it. They read like bad film scripts
Here's another
>M. Tustet, a Lazarist priest, used to relate what he had heard when living at Turin from the lady who nearly fell a victim to Jewish superstition, even in the early part of the present century. A certain Signor Antonio Gervalon, born at Castiglione d’Osta, and settled in business at Turin, happened, when walking with his wife Giulietta Bonnier, to enter the Jewish quarter. This Ghetto used to be closed at night, as in Hamburg and Frankfort. Whilst he was talking business with one of his Hebrew acquaintances, Madame Gervalon left him, and strolled on a short way. Suddenly she was mobbed by a crowd of Jews, who hustled her forwards, and at last forcibly thrust her into a souterrain closed by a trap‑door. She was stripped to the waist, and presently visited by two Rabbis, who, after reading their books for about half an hour, retired, saying, Voi dovete morire. The husband, after the conversation ended, followed his wife, whom all the Ghetto folk denied having seen; and thinking that perhaps she had gone home, he returned there to seek her, but in vain. Thence he went to various houses, till a relative said to him in jest, “Have a care! You know how the Jews treat us Christians.” The words struck him. He hurriedly collected a party of policemen, and whilst these searched the Ghetto he went about shouting, “La mia moglie! La mia moglie!” (My wife! my wife!). Though half dead with fear, the lady at length screamed a reply, and was saved. The affair was hushed up with money, which made the Jews as powerful at Turin as they are at Aleppo and Damascus; but the tale was long told by the children of Madame Gervalon. In this section of the nineteenth century the subject has passed into the domain of politics, and is no longer submitted to reason and judgment. The Italian Liberal denies and derides the charges, whilst the Conservatives or Retrogrades are almost ashamed to support them.

I’ve never seen convincing evidence of it. Keep in mind this was at a time when serfs believed in goblins. Wouldn’t surprise me if Jewish peasants entertained similar stories about Christians.

Yeah. I'm interested in knowing where these myths originated. Were they used by rulers to incite people to acts of violence?

Richard Burton was a pretty cool guy.

There's plenty of antisemitism in the New Testament. There's even passages that imply the Jews worship the devil.

So insanity like this is inevitable. I'd say it would originate more with the lower class that would be resentful that some of the Jews started becoming middle-class merchants.

>How could otherwise intelligent people permit themselves to believe this shit? Sounds like something a peasant would make up.
The same reason otherwise intelligent people believe in the Holocaust.

>There's plenty of antisemitism in the New Testament.

The blood libel thing? It started with Romans misunderstanding christian tradition of drinking "blood of Christ".

I don't see why you couldn't look this shit up on your own.
>The earliest known example of a blood libel is from Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE), who alleged that "every seven years the Jews captured a stranger, brought him to the temple in Jerusalem, and sacrificed him, cutting his flesh into bits."[15] The Graeco-Egyptian author Apion claimed that Jews sacrificed Greek victims in their temple. This accusation is known from Josephus' rebuttal of it in Against Apion. Apion states that when Antiochus Epiphanes entered the temple in Jerusalem, he discovered a Greek captive who told him that he was being fattened for sacrifice. Every year, Apion claimed, the Jews would sacrifice a Greek and consume his flesh, at the same time swearing eternal hatred towards the Greeks.[16] Apion's claim probably repeats ideas already in circulation because similar claims are made by Posidonius and Apollonius Molon in the 1st century BC.[17] Another example concerns the murder of a Christian boy by a group of Jewish youths. Socrates Scholasticus (fl. 5th Century) reported that some Jews in a drunken frolic bound a Christian child on a cross in mockery of the death of Christ and scourged him until he died.[18]

>Christians believed on goblins but Jews werent dumb enough to do human sacrifice even though evidence of it is found through out Canaan

Judaism is younger than Christianity. I don’t associate modern Jews with the ancient Hebrews.
Besides, child sacrifice was rebuked and the places of such acts were designated as realms of punishment for the wicked.

>Judaism is younger than Christianity
LOL. "I want my religion to be older!"

>I don’t associate modern Jews with the ancient Hebrews
Who cares what you think about races? That doesn't change the date of the beleif systems.

But that particular belief system believes they are descendant from the ancient hebrews so it matters even more to them than to us.

>LOL. "I want my religion to be older!"
I was quoting Harold Bloom

Tell me which belief system came first? The Jewish or the Christian one. For fuck sakes the Jewish texts are older. You already know the answer to this but you don't want to admit because you have some fucking stick up your ass about the Jews.

>For fuck sakes the Jewish texts are older.
Why call them Jewish texts? The Christians also use them. Your use of the word Jewish puts modern Jews under the same umbrella with ancient Hebrews. Those texts belong no more to modern Jews than to Christians.
> you have some fucking stick up your ass about the Jews.
I was merely quoting a Jew. What makes you think I dislike Jews?

Im not even a christian. You seemed to misinterpret my post shlomo. I never claimed the christian texts were older that was another poster.

I can claim with 100% reassurance that modern jews are barely if not even zero descendant from the biblical hebrews

The original Jews, Christians, and Hindus that practiced their religion are not the same as the current one's and the interpretations are different. That's simply how reality works. People and beliefs change with time.

I don't see you making any point.

The Christians of today would have no trouble affirming the Nicene Creed of 300. Modern Jews are more closely associated with ancient Hebrews only because we use the same word to designate the two groups. You might as well call Caesar an Italian.

It's interesting how it evolved. At first they were simply fucked up cannibals, after the crucifixion of Christ they started crucifying Christian boys and drinking their blood.

The Italians mostly stayed in their own region, but you can still say romans differed genetically from modern day italians because of invasions. Most of the jews are not ME natives and have intermixed with other peoples extensively. They have certainly less semitic blood than arabs and therefore have less claim to "the holy land". Basing their claims on religious text is even more autistic.

JEWS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHO HAVE NEVER PRODUCED SERIAL KILLERS, CULTS, OR OCCULTIC PRACTICIONERS YOU ANTISEMITES

>Most of the jews are not ME natives and have intermixed with other peoples extensively.
This is not really true. They actually cluster closely with all other Jews. But Ashkenazi mtDNA comes Italy.

>The Christians of today would have no trouble affirming the Nicene Creed of 300

And the Christians of the 1st century would not. From what I've gathered the scholarly consensus is that Jesus himself didn't preach that he was divine. That's how much religions fucking change over time. Jesus had his own theology, Paul had his, the various Gospel writers had their own. Than the Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Presbyterians, all had their own interpretation. All of them of course wanting to say there's is the true, unchanged religion since the 1st century.

Judaism is also highly splintered: going from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic. With various priesthoods that came and went.

>And the Christians of the 1st century would not
Like Paul? Brainletwojak.jpg
>Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Presbyterians
All accepting the Nicene Creed and all in agreement as to the central doctrine

pls tell more

1. The idea that Jesus is God isn't even developed in Pauliane theology.
2. There was no "one Catholic church" in Paul's time. It was a bunch of people in clustered little pockets all battling it out to see who's theology was "true". Jesus himself might not have agree'd to the terms (the historical one at least).

>All accepting the Nicene Creed and all in agreement as to the central doctrine
No dude. Most Protestants and Presbyterians do not even know what the fucking creed is and would instantly reject the moment they saw the word "Catholic" in it.

Protestants and Catholics argued for centuaries over who's side the word "Catholic" refuses to.

There's also a ton of other factions like the Jehova's Witness, the Mormons, or countless non-denominational groups that probably never heard of it and if they did would reject it. To which the only response would be "well they aren't TRUE Christians!"

>Jehova's Witness, the Mormons, or countless non-denominational groups that probably never heard of it and if they did would reject it
>To which the only response would be "well they aren't TRUE Christians!"
Of all the denominations you choose, it's the cults? lol

>No dude. Most Protestants and Presbyterians do not even know what the fucking creed is and would instantly reject the moment they saw the word "Catholic" in it.
They agree regardless.
>, the Mormons
You're not prepared to discuss this sort of thing. You seem to think that the existence of splinter movements proves that Christianity is subjective. It's just a semantics game at this point.