History questions not worth their own thread
- Thread starter philippe
- Start date
- Status
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Same reason why touchstones were used. Gold was relatively soft, so you could tell if it really was gold by the texture. I ahve no idea with other metals, but I assume people didn't go around biting stuff when it wouldn't tell them anything.
What say1988 said, gold is ridiculously soft (as is copper). I don't think silver is as soft (not too sure) and I know even something stupidly soft like aluminium is harder than the aforementioned metals. (EDIT: On checking, I found Al is actualyl softer than all of them)
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Yeah, probably had something about people trying to pass electrum (gold mixed with silver) for pure gold. I recall that Archimedes's principle (regarding buoyancy related to density) had to do with trying to foil that practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#The_Golden_Crown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#The_Golden_Crown
carmen510
Deity
Why do/did Christians persecute Jews? After all, the religion had roots in Judaism as Jesus was Jewish, it seems like he simply expanded upon his religion and had a huge ego.
JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
That question(Anti-Semitism) is not worth its own thread? Oy vey!
carmen510
Deity
1. Are you referring to Jesus calling himself, basically, the Messiah?
2. Differences may be the causes of it, but what differences?
3. Why are they easy to target? Which Christians targeted them?
1. From a simple point of view (this could be taken pretty in depth probably), that would be the biggie. There are other beliefs that differ as well.
2. While Judaism and Christianity have similar backgrounds, they are quite different. They have different practices, different holidays, different leaders, and different beliefs.
3. Except perhaps very early on, Jews have represented a small minority compared to Christians and were generally quite spread out and had no government or institutions to actually protect them.
I don't know what may have been the first issue to result in specific targeting, but they were different and usually vulnerable, which has historically been an invitation for persecution. And after centuries of persecution it isn't something that will just end.
Look at all the breakaway Christian sects that were persecuted and often annihilated, they were often much closer to common Christianity than Judaism (at least after the first century or so).
2. While Judaism and Christianity have similar backgrounds, they are quite different. They have different practices, different holidays, different leaders, and different beliefs.
3. Except perhaps very early on, Jews have represented a small minority compared to Christians and were generally quite spread out and had no government or institutions to actually protect them.
I don't know what may have been the first issue to result in specific targeting, but they were different and usually vulnerable, which has historically been an invitation for persecution. And after centuries of persecution it isn't something that will just end.
Look at all the breakaway Christian sects that were persecuted and often annihilated, they were often much closer to common Christianity than Judaism (at least after the first century or so).
Because 'em bastards nailed our Messiah to the cross!
Also, I bet you don't love banks either-
And finally, you need a scapegoat when you fall ill or when your harvest is poor.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think #3 is true at least regarding usury (strictly meant loaning in medieval times), which was a needed service, yet Christians were forbidden to practice it. So that'd probably be one love-hate relationship Europe had with Hebrew people.
carmen510
Deity
@Yeekim: Didn't the Romans nail Jesus to the Crucifix?
@GoodGame: That helps me understand the 'Jewish banker' stereotype.
@GoodGame: That helps me understand the 'Jewish banker' stereotype.
There's some theology that effectively blamed the Jewish priests for that. Something about Pontus Pilate washing his hands and all that. I don't remember it off the top of my head.
It was the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin who arraigned and tried Jesus, whereupon he was remanded to the Roman authorities for punishment. The basis for a lot of the anti-Semitism as opposed to, say, anti-Roman sentiments comes from John 19:11, where Jesus states that Caiaphas apparently had the greater guilt in condemning him to death. I am unaware of whether this verse is likely to be a later insertion.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
I figured the line cited would be Matthew 28:24-5
Pilate [...] washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. Look to it yourselves." And the whole people said in reply, "His blood be upon us and upon our children."
footnote: As the Second Vatican Council has pointed out, guilt for Jesus' death is not attributable to all the Jews of his time or to any Jews of later times.
[source: the New American Bible]
That works too.
Also, half the message of Christianity is that the Crucifixion was a good thing, and Jesus said a couple of times in the gospels that the only person who had the power to cause Jesus to die was Jesus himself, thus he allowed the Jews and the Romans to kill him; that part is always overlooked.
Well, of course. I was under the impression that that wasn't up for debate and that the part we were discussing was why anti-Semitism made any sense at all for Christians.
Fine, be that way, it was just a reminder.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Of course, if you wanted to be really specific, it was Longinus who he allowed to kill him, not the Romans or Jews.
- Status
Similar threads
