Jump to content

Talk:History of antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut unrelated content

[edit]

After Jesus' death, the New Testament portrays the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem as hostile to Jesus' followers, and as occasionally using force against them. Drawing from the Jewish prophet Jeremiah (31:31–34), the New Testament teaches that with the death of Jesus a New Covenant was established which rendered obsolete, and in many respects superseded, the first covenant established by Moses (Hebrews 8:7–13; Luke 22:20). Observance of the earlier covenant traditionally characterizes Judaism. This New Testament teaching, and later variations to it, are part of what is called supersessionism. However, the early Jewish followers of Jesus continued to practice circumcision and observe dietary laws, which is why the failure to observe these laws by the first Gentile Christians became a matter of controversy and dispute some years after Jesus' death (Acts 11:3; 15:1ff; 16:3). Stephen is executed by stoning.[1] Before his conversion, Saul puts followers of Jesus in prison.[2] After his conversion, Saul (Paul) is whipped at various times by Jewish authorities[3] and is accused by Jewish authorities before the Roman courts.[4] However, opposition by gentiles is also described,[5] and more generally there are widespread references in the New Testament to the suffering experienced by Jesus' followers at the hands of others, particularly the Romans.[6]

Egyptians

[edit]

No mention of enslavement by ancient Egypt— big miss 2600:1700:4640:9DC0:BC4B:C90A:BFDB:CB9B (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bias rule states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"

[edit]

Please do not delete reliable sources because of a false misunderstanding of the bias rule. The rule applies to editors not to sources. The bias rule states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." see WP:BIASED Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected class

[edit]

@Remsense I see you reverted my edit. The reason "Protected class" is ambiguous, is because it can be interpreted as something positive (e.g. royalty can also be considered a "protected class"). It clearly isn't.

No further context is provided about what this "protected class" actually entailed (i.e. second-class citizenship). It is therefore more appropriate to use the term second-class citizens + wiki hyperlink. Alternatively, one could directly use the term dhimmi status in the introduction.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the best solution is further elaboration—as it stands, the dynamic in many periods and locales where dhimmi were essentially cultivated as a necessary source of state income is too important to avoid mention entirely, and I would consider the present wording to be less misleading. Remsense ‥  08:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply.
Would you then agree that the following phrasing is more accurate: "in that Jews had dhimmi status."
While I think it is more accurate and appropriate, I'm not sure if it is proper English. Roffaduft (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where Jews had dhimmi status would be perfectly fine by me. Remsense ‥  08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]