fluffybunny, your lethal when you get hold of a keyboard!
Full Version: Jesus
LOL
fluffybunny, your lethal when you get hold of a keyboard!
fluffybunny, your lethal when you get hold of a keyboard!
Chauncy,
You'll have to give me some info on the alleged similarities between Moses and Akhenaten, because one of the sites you listed earlier in your reply to Moonbaby is not only confusing, but it also has some things on it that I'm fairly sure you would not subscribe to (like ancient Egyptians being responsible for some carvings in New Mexico and Arizona, and the ancient Egyptians somehow being related to American Indians). Because I'm pretty sure you're not down with much of what I saw there, I'll allow you to give me some insight on the Moses-Akhenaten similarities.
As far as Moses and Sargon go, here are the four things the two stories have in common:
1) Both births kept secret. Sargon's is probably kept secret because his mom was a high priestess, a position that could be compromised by pregnancy. Moses's birth is kept secret because of the Egyptian genocide of the Hebrew infant males.
2) The placement of both infants in reed baskets covered with bitumen. In Moses's case his mom had wrapped him in a basket in such a way that he might be discovered by someone. The kind of basket Moses is placed in was the kind in which the Egyptians placed their idols. This would have been readily noticed by an Egyptian (and so it was).
3) Both kids are placed in a river. Unlike the infant Sargon, though, Moses's mom places him among the reeds. Sargon's mom just puts him in the river. The placement of Moses in the reeds demostrates that he was meant to found, whereas the placement of Sargon in the river demonstrates that he was meant to be abandoned.
4) Both kids are recovered and adopted into an Egyptian household.
Okay, so what does this leave us with? In spite of these four similarities, we're still not left with a lot of room to say who stole from whom. The reason why? Because there are about 72 different stories of child abandonment in antiquity coming from such places as Assyria, Albania, Persia , Rome, Germany, Ireland, and Turkey, among others. The thing is, they all have about seven different elements involved, with the four I've mentioned being among them.
This might seem weird at first, but it need not. Child abandonment has (sadly) been a world-wide cultural phenomenon for centuries. Because such children are usually placed in dangerous places (so to facilitate their deaths) it is not surprising that we'd get some stories from a bunch of different places where a child is cast on a river to drift off into death.
Also, these circumstantial differences do not account for the radical differences between Moses and Sargon. As far as I've seen, after they are adopted by their humanitarian mommies the similarities kinda fade into the background. If Sargon went on to occupy a some sort of God-ordained priestly/prophetic office and lead a nation out of bondage at the behest of the same God, then we've got something very cool on our hands.
| QUOTE |
| For example, a woman who has been battered by her husband, or abused by her father, is not obliged to grant such a person mechila unless he has, first, desisted from all abusive activity; second, reformed his character through analysis of sin, remorse, restitution, and confession; and third, actually asked for forgiveness several times. |
Compare with the forgiveness of Jesus on the cross.
| QUOTE |
| Hmmm, I am getting mixed message here, It appears to me that even with the love of jesus it just doesn't help much in the forgiveness department... |
LOL
Sometimes you are a FunnyBunny!
| QUOTE (DrStrangelove @ May 25 2004, 07:18 PM) |
| Hmmm, well first of all, being a christian I have nothing ot fear. The Bible (God) says I have nothing to fear. Second of all this "church" you're talking about sounds like the roman catholic church. The christian church only referrs to the collective of christians. You all have such warped definitions of church and prayer and sin. |
Well, i think he meant that the church uses the bible to also instill fear in people and the church and religion uses that fear to bring people to them. You said that because you're christian you have nothing to fear... kinda giving off the impression that you think that if you werent christian you would have something to fear... thus proving his point.
trublvr said:
| QUOTE |
| Okay, so what does this leave us with? In spite of these four similarities, we're still not left with a lot of room to say who stole from whom. |
You have to look at the time period also:
| QUOTE |
| The biblical chronology dates the birth of Moses to around 1527 BC. In the new chronology of Egypt, the pharaoh on the throne of Egypt was Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty. |
and
| QUOTE |
| Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres. Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres died and lead the Israelites to freedom. |
It's not just the similarities in the floating down the river story.
Chauncy said:
| QUOTE |
| The bottom line today is that we do not need the religiosity of Jesus rhetoric to teach these moral lessons.....forgive and be forgiven?.....forgiven of what? |
I could not agree more. I think Christianity was a stepping stone needed to "civilize" humanity, but any religion could have done it; Christianity just pushed the hardest, or was the most appealing. Religion will eventually fade away. Just so everyone is aware, I am an ex-born again Christian. I know there's a lot of people in here who found their peace in Christianity, I think it's only fair that it is known that there are people who were Christians but found peace elsewhere.
Has anyone looked at the comparison of the lives of Jesus and Horus (he's an Egyptian god)?
| QUOTE |
| Because there are about 72 different stories of child abandonment in antiquity coming from such places as Assyria, Albania, Persia , Rome, Germany, Ireland, and Turkey, among others |
Child abandonement common....yes....Child abandonement with a reed basket, seal with pitch and sent down the river to be drawn out is the point of intersect within these two stories. You obviously want to diminish these similarities in order to maintain the wishful uniqueness of your religion.
Just like you did by saying forgiveness was lost to the Jews and still is, yet you forgot to mention the concept of Mechila which I pointed out.....why did you over look this most blaring contradiction to your accusation?
| QUOTE |
| I'll allow you to give me some insight on the Moses-Akhenaten similarities. |
Will you now???.....I'm going to hold you to this statement Troublvr
The origin of the word 'Moses' is the Egyptian word Mos which means "child." This word also had another meaning = 'the rightful son and heir'. It was punishable by death to say Akhenaten's name after he was exiled, so a name was developed so his followers could talk about him. They called him 'Mos' (the son) to show that he was the son of Amenhotep III and the rightful heir to his father's throne. The Royal Mos.
Ancient Egyptians pronounced vowels but none were ever written. The written word meaning 'child' or 'son' has two consonnts 'm' and 's' hence the Hebrew word 'Moses' has it's root in the Egyptian 'Mos' and the 's' of Moses comes from the Greek translation into the biblical name.
After his exile Akhenaten lived with his followers in Southern Sinai for 25 years witnessing the reigns of Tutankhamun, Aye, and Horemheb. Akhenaten lived with the Midianites Bedouins and convinced them to follow his religion .After Horemheb died Akhenaten took the oppurtunity to leave his exile in Southern Sinai, go back to Egypt and reclaim his rightful throne, now that he had quite the following.
When he arrived he was wearing the clothes of the Midianites and with his new friends he went to General Pa-Ramses house in the city of Zarw, where he was born, but it had been turned into a prison for his original followers. Pa-Ramses was making plans to become the first ruler of the 19th Ramesside dynasty when he was told of the return of Akhenaten.
Akhenaten challenged Pa-Ramses' saying he had no right to the throne!. Pa-Ramses called a meeting of all the wise men in Egypt. At this meeting Akhenaten showed his 'scepter of royal power' which he had with him during his exile, he subsequently performed secret magic that only a king of Egypt would know how to perform.
The wise men saw the scepter of 'Royal Authority' and Akhenaten's use of the magic, the wise men went to their knees in front of him and declared him to be the rightful King . Pa-Ramses was in control of the army and used this influence to change the decision of the wise men, thus keeping his throne by force, it was a coup no different then what we have seen in Russia.
Pa-Ramses sat in the throne as Ramses I, the first king of the 19th dynasty. Akhenaten fled from Egypt with his followers who all accepted his Monotheistic religion. Akhenaten fled to Sinai through the area of Zarw because of it's muddy terrain he hoped it would slow down the ensuing Egyptian chariots.
Akhenaten after awhile went north into Gaza and raided the city with his followers. Ramese I was old when he stole the throne so his son Seti I led his army to fight Akhenaten and his followers, subsequently beating them. These battles took place all over and was quite the campaign. They fought all along the Horus Road and right into the middle of Sinai.
Does all this sound familiar to you?......I think in the bible they added some other divine acts though, like the parting of the Red Sea. which made for great special effects in the movies, but the original events were a little less fantastic it seems.
This is the obvious birth place of Monotheism.....do you agree with this fact?
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres. Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres died and lead the Israelites to freedom. |
Moonbaby,
I was responding to the alleged similarities between the story of Moses and the Sargon story. Is this somehow connected with that? If not, then this is a whole different thing all together. I'll still check it out, but I just want to be clear.
| QUOTE |
| Has anyone looked at the comparison of the lives of Jesus and Horus (he's an Egyptian god)? |
Yeah, I looked up the Horus-Jesus material at the website you recommended. If I'm going exclusively on what the site presents, then you've got a very strong case here. But therein lies the problem. Everything I've seen that is translating the exploits of Horus from the Egyptian hieroglyphs says nothing of most of the "striking parallels" that are mentioned. I'll give you a few examples:
* Horus's birth: From the original Egyptian material there's no mention of Horus being born in a manger or cave. From all indications he was born in a swamp. Also, there's no mention of a star, angel, or wise men heralding Horus's birth. Nowhere in the New Testament does any writer try to claim that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, so even if there was evidence that Horus was born on that day, it wouldn't matter for our discussion. In regards to Horus's alleged "virgin birth" the Egyptian material says exactly the opposite: After Seth killed Osiris, cut up his body into 14 parts and scattered them all over, Isis buried each part in a different place except Osiris's penis. She conceived Horus through post-mortem sex with Osiris. For the Egyptians, this is what made Horus's death miraculous, not Isis's virginity. And Isis had a surname, which was "Meri", making her full name Isis-Meri. Also, there is no connection between the name of Horus's dad ("Seb", the personfication of the earth itself) and the name of Jesus's dad ("Joseph").
* Horus's disciples: He had four disciples, not twelve like Jesus. These four had some sort of semi-divine status conferred upon them. From the Egyptian info, there are no other disciples of Horus mentioned.
* Horus's miracles: Stuff attributed to Horus: exorcism and general, unnamed miracles. However, neither the raising of the dead by Horus nor Horus's own rising from the dead are ever attributed to Horus or anyone else in the Egytian religion. In fact, when one studies the Egyptian funerary practices and their beliefs about the underworld, you see why resurrection of any kind wouldn't work for them. There is also nothing recorded about Horus walking on water.
In regards to miracles, please keep in mind that there are miracles stories from all over the world concerning healings and exorcisms, among other things. The Christian claim is not that Jesus is unique because he worked miracles. In fact, even Jesus made reference to the Pharisees being able to exorcize demons! Just as with the issue of Jesus's moral teachings, the uniqueness of the miracles do not lie primarily in the miraculous phenomena, but in who is working them and what the "signs" are pointing to.
*Horus's self-identification: Titles ascribed to Horus are Great God, Master of Heaven, Chief of Powers, Avenger of his father. Titles of Jesus wh/ are in no way ascribed to Horus: Christ (KRST), Word made flesh, Word of Truth, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Good Shepherd. There's nothing to show that Horus claimed to be the Son of the Father or the Everlasting Son of the Father.
*Horus's death: There are two stories: 1) Horus becomes merged with Re, the sun god, and in that way "dies"; 2) Horus is carved up into pieces like his dad and thrown into the water. So no crucifixion between two thieves and no tomb for his interrment.
*Odds and ends about Horus: Never associated with a fish, lamb, or lion. Never claimed to fulfill any law (Torah for Jews). By the by, in an Egyptian context, what "law" would he be fulfilling? He is never recorded as giving a sermon of any kind on a mountain, and his disciples did not go around teaching what he taught them. Also, there nothing in the Egyptian record to show that he was ever "transfigured" on a mountian or any other place. Even if this were the case, how would this have happened in an Egyptian context? Who would've been the Moses and Elijah figures for him to stand between? Even if we were to stumble across something that suggested that something weird happened to Horus on a high place, we would still be in the dark because such an event would fail to suggest a parallel with Jesus and what happened during the Transfiguration.
What we have here is exactly what I have referred to in recent postings concerning supposed parallels between biblical material and that of other non-Judaic/non-Christian religions. Some scholars now irresponsibly read Jewish and Christian-sounding things into other texts and then are astounded to find "striking similarities that will shake the foundations of Judaism and Christianity forever"
Horus's "baptism" for example: His vivisected corpse was thrown into a body of water + Jesus was baptized in a body of water = Horus and Jesus were baptized. Isis-Meri conceived Horus miraculously + Mary conceived Jesus miraculously = Horus and Jesus were both products of Virgin Births...but only if you forget that Isis is never called virgin and conceives Horus by copulating with the deceased and dismembered Osiris' phallus. This is how all of these so-called parallels are "discovered".
| QUOTE |
| Just like you did by saying forgiveness was lost to the Jews and still is, yet you forgot to mention the concept of Mechila which I pointed out.....why did you over look this most blaring contradiction to your accusation? |
Umm, Chauncy, you've got the wrong dude here. I'd suggest that you go back and read my recent postings and those of others. No hard feelings, though; there's lots of info swirling around on this thread.
trublvr
| QUOTE |
| you've got the wrong dude here |
My deepest apologies Trublvr it was not you......it was the JOC!!!!
None-the-less it was a misconception that I hope is cleared up now.
Again my apologies.
| QUOTE |
| My deepest apologies Trublvr |
We're cool, man.
And the stuff you gave concerning Akhenaten was what I was looking for. I had trouble locating it. I'll look it over and get back with you later today (got errands to run!).
| QUOTE |
| Moonbaby, I was responding to the alleged similarities between the story of Moses and the Sargon story. Is this somehow connected with that? If not, then this is a whole different thing all together. I'll still check it out, but I just want to be clear. |
Nope, not connected, I'm just impatient sometimes (actually most of the time). So sorry senior
. | QUOTE |
| He had four disciples, not twelve like Jesus |
Thats because they needed twelve to fill all the chairs at the last supper.....jjk.
The additional 8 are a result of the transposition on the part of the Hebrew writers.
The semi-divine staus you mentioned is similar to the semi-divine status of the apostles as well with the group mentality associated with the two gangs.
| QUOTE |
| Nowhere in the New Testament does any writer try to claim that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, so even if there was evidence that Horus was born on that day, it wouldn't matter for our discussion. |
Never-the-less Trublvr most Christians celebrate this date as the birth of Jesus. That's why nativity scene sales skyrocket during the month of december.
| QUOTE |
| this is what made Horus's death miraculous |
So your admitting to the fact that the conception was of a miraculous nature. "Meri"
or "Meri-Amon" or Mary ....seems like a co-relation here as well.
| QUOTE |
| Stuff attributed to Horus: exorcism and general, unnamed miracles. However, neither the raising of the dead by Horus nor Horus's own rising from the dead are ever attributed to Horus or anyone else in the Egytian religion |
The egyptians lived on, they were not resurrected to this world but to that across the Nile to Hades where they encountered Annubis, which the Hebrews converted to Judgement. the 'weighing of the soul'. Its obvious the biblical writers had the egyptian historical record as influence. May be that's why there is so much archaelogoical suppression as to cover up the sources of a religion that has made too many false claims.
| QUOTE |
| There is also nothing recorded about Horus walking on water. |
Probably because he didn't. Hebrew effect I assume. But if you want to see someone who has the same biographical info as Jesus look at Zoroastor
http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_1216.asp
There is exact similarities between all the characters we mentioned and there are differences, none-the-less these are common threads in man's history. your religion is not unique, its been refurbished and retold many times over, your religion being the most recent.
| QUOTE |
| *Horus's self-identification: Titles ascribed to Horus are Great God, Master of Heaven, Chief of Powers, Avenger of his father. Titles of Jesus wh/ are in no way ascribed to Horus: Christ (KRST), Word made flesh, Word of Truth, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Good Shepherd. There's nothing to show that Horus claimed to be the Son of the Father or the Everlasting Son of the Father |
This is exactly what we are saying, its because these stories never revolved around this God to which you refer, we are saying they are similar and they don't mention this God you worship. Most of these characters and historical accounts occurred outside your biblical realm. Which leads us to believe that the Christian account is the most far removed from the actual events both in time and interpretation.
| QUOTE |
| This is exactly what we are saying, its because these stories never revolved around this God to which you refer, we are saying they are similar and they don't mention this God you worship. Most of these characters and historical accounts occurred outside your biblical realm. Which leads us to believe that the Christian account is the most far removed from the actual events both in time and interpretation. |
Exactly. It seems to me like the Bible just stole a little from here, a little from there and incorporated it all into one big book. Like creation. In Genesis, it states that there was nothing except water covering the Earth before God got a hold of it. Well, ancient Egyptians had the creation story also and it all started from a "primordial, stagnent lake", Nu.
I know that this is just one little example, but it's one on top of a whole bunch of other ones. I'd be more likely to stick with the Egyptian explanation because they didn't claim the whole Earth was created in a very short amount of time. That leaves time for evolution to happen.
I have a question. I should know this but... OK were the Hebrew's the one's being persecuted in Egypt and were the Hebrew's the original writers of the Bible?
Yep, those are the ones allright. It can get confusing because they call themselves Jews nowadays. Of course many of them don't realize that the word "Jew" is derived from a Roman slang word meaning "Insect". Somehow the word became a popular term to describe Hebrews..
I always understood it as such:
Jews are the descendants of the joining of two tribes....Hebrews and Israelites.....the chosen people. Jews are the mixture of the two.
Jews are the descendants of the joining of two tribes....Hebrews and Israelites.....the chosen people. Jews are the mixture of the two.
OK, the Israelites, were they being persecuted?
That's the popular spin theory. Jew however was a word used by Roman historians to describe how insignificant they found the province of Judaea and it's inhabitants. I have it in at least one of books of ancient Rome, although I'm not about to dig through my closet at this time of night to find it..
The Hebrews kept the slang term in usage as a point of pride. And why not? They survived long after the last Roman bit the dust..
The Hebrews kept the slang term in usage as a point of pride. And why not? They survived long after the last Roman bit the dust..
Both were held captive for generations yes.....as tribes they were persecuted and well you can see what the Jews have went through in their history.
Has something to do with their bloodline. Their bloodline was always preserved, and it was also hunted.
Has something to do with their bloodline. Their bloodline was always preserved, and it was also hunted.
OK, so would a logical conclusion be that these people were tired of being persecuted and hunted so they started their own little book of myths and whatnot?
If you had a book that said the "One True God" was on your side, it might make things seem a little better don't you think?
Its also interesting to note how the Jews view Christians and vice versa.
Your aware of the controversy over the movie Passion, many Jews claimed it to be anti-semetic (anti-jewish).
Here's why. The Jews feel that the whole NT testament is anti Jewish and they may be right. The "bloody commission," a statement that places upon the Jews guilt for all the righteous blood ever shed upon the earth (Matthew 23:35), or a spurious self-condemnation whereby the Jewish people supposedly take upon themselves and their offspring an eternal blame for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25), or a declaration that the Jews are the children of the devil (John 8:44) and that the Jews are a "synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Paul summed up the denunciation of the Jews with the inflammatory declaration that the Jews are "hostile to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:15).
Matthew 8:12 Jews cast into outer darkness
Matthew 23:37,38 Jerusalem killed the prophets
Mark 13:9 in synagogues you shall be beaten
John 8:43, 47 You are of your father, the Devil...you are not of God
Acts 7:51-53 persecute prophets; betrayers & murderers
Acts 13:45-51 Jews reject word of God, so turn to Gentiles
Titus 1:10-14 they of circumcision...must be stopped
John 16:2, 3 whoever kills you will think he does God a service
Matthew 8:10-12 children of kingdom cast into outer darkness
Luke 20:9-16, Matt 13:36-43, and Luke 19:12-27 are parables which speak of
Gentiles inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven while Jews are cast into Hell.
Jews feel that the New Testament was written by Gentiles, and is a fictionalized or propagandized version of events. I tell ya though I have to agree with them, I mean its written in the book!!!!
Your aware of the controversy over the movie Passion, many Jews claimed it to be anti-semetic (anti-jewish).
Here's why. The Jews feel that the whole NT testament is anti Jewish and they may be right. The "bloody commission," a statement that places upon the Jews guilt for all the righteous blood ever shed upon the earth (Matthew 23:35), or a spurious self-condemnation whereby the Jewish people supposedly take upon themselves and their offspring an eternal blame for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25), or a declaration that the Jews are the children of the devil (John 8:44) and that the Jews are a "synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Paul summed up the denunciation of the Jews with the inflammatory declaration that the Jews are "hostile to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:15).
Matthew 8:12 Jews cast into outer darkness
Matthew 23:37,38 Jerusalem killed the prophets
Mark 13:9 in synagogues you shall be beaten
John 8:43, 47 You are of your father, the Devil...you are not of God
Acts 7:51-53 persecute prophets; betrayers & murderers
Acts 13:45-51 Jews reject word of God, so turn to Gentiles
Titus 1:10-14 they of circumcision...must be stopped
John 16:2, 3 whoever kills you will think he does God a service
Matthew 8:10-12 children of kingdom cast into outer darkness
Luke 20:9-16, Matt 13:36-43, and Luke 19:12-27 are parables which speak of
Gentiles inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven while Jews are cast into Hell.
Jews feel that the New Testament was written by Gentiles, and is a fictionalized or propagandized version of events. I tell ya though I have to agree with them, I mean its written in the book!!!!
Ok, I'm confused now. Wasn't there a story where the apostles were kind of irritated because a Gentile woman reached out and touched Jesus' robe? I was under the impression that at that moment Jesus changed and realized that Gentile's were people too (I did it!).
I think what Chauncy means is that the New Testament was written years after Jesus' death mostly by gentiles who had converted from Judaism or Pagan beliefs, or former Jews with a grudge against thier old religion(like Paul). The Jews feel that the they are downplayed and minimized for the sake of a new religion which was for them just a subsect of Judaism in the first place..
I don't think it really has much to do with how Jesus himself might have felt about Gentiles..
I don't think it really has much to do with how Jesus himself might have felt about Gentiles..
| QUOTE |
| Ok, I'm confused now. Wasn't there a story where the apostles were kind of irritated because a Gentile woman reached out and touched Jesus' robe? I was under the impression that at that moment Jesus changed and realized that Gentile's were people too |
Hence the contradiction......see the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, they say christians jumped the gun on the messiah issue. Some Jews don't believe Jesus was anything but a man
| QUOTE |
| (I did it!). |
Me too!!
| QUOTE |
| The Jews feel that the they are downplayed and minimized for the sake of a new religion which was for them just a subsect of Judaism in the first place.. |
You dig it man!!!
That sums it up nicely
| QUOTE (Chauncy @ May 27 2004, 03:47 AM) | ||||
Hence the contradiction......see the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, they say christians jumped the gun on the messiah issue. Some Jews don't believe Jesus was anything but a man
Me too!! |
When Jesus was first preaching did he look down on the Gentiles?
Jews don't look down on Gentiles in general.They never really did back then either. They just view themselves as a race apart. Jesus probably didn't give them much thought in his early days...
He was the first however to come up with the idea that if Jews couldn't be like Gentiles, then maybe Gentiles could be like Jews. So if you were an early Christian you were basically a half-jew. you weren't born into the religion but you were allowed to worship the same god and adopt Jewish customs..
Later as the focus shifted toward Christ and away from Yahweh, the Christians spent much time either trying to convert or persecuting the same people whose religion they adopted and modified..
Ironic, ain't it?
He was the first however to come up with the idea that if Jews couldn't be like Gentiles, then maybe Gentiles could be like Jews. So if you were an early Christian you were basically a half-jew. you weren't born into the religion but you were allowed to worship the same god and adopt Jewish customs..
Later as the focus shifted toward Christ and away from Yahweh, the Christians spent much time either trying to convert or persecuting the same people whose religion they adopted and modified..
Ironic, ain't it?
OK, so now we're talkin' about anti-semitism and the New Testament? Cool.
| QUOTE |
| The Jews feel that the whole NT testament is anti Jewish and they may be right. |
Keep in mind that every book in the bible, including the New Testament, is written by Jewish people.
| QUOTE |
| The "bloody commission," a statement that places upon the Jews guilt for all the righteous blood ever shed upon the earth (Matthew 23:35) |
This is not a "bloody commission" upon ANYONE. If you read the passage carefully (and clearly you have not), you find that Jesus is speaking specifically to Pharisees, and Jesus is not making reference to "all the righteous blood ever shed upon the earth". In Matt. 23, he makes specifically speaks of the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah, who were regarded by all Jews as prophets. Jesus is euphemistically saying what is true: That the Jewish nation has historically shown severe disdain toward its own prophets. This even resulted in murder of the prophets. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are continuing in that same vein by opposing him. You can read the Old Testament (which also written by Jews) to see if that's true or not. For references, look up what happened with Moses and Elijah and Elisha.
| QUOTE |
| or a spurious self-condemnation whereby the Jewish people supposedly take upon themselves and their offspring an eternal blame for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25) |
This saying was known to Jewish people. What is meant here by the Jews is this: "We think that our cause is so righteous and godly in seeing this man [Jesus] put to death, that if we're wrong, may our children suffer." This was seldom used (for obvious reasons), but it was a way of saying, "We think we're really right here!" There were many such hyperboles in Jewish culture. Even if you think the New Testament writers fabricated this, no Jew would have understood this to mean that this statement makes the seed of Abraham [the Jews] deserving of all the trouble they've gone through in history. It is preposterous.
| QUOTE |
| a declaration that the Jews are the children of the devil (John 8:44) |
Again, Jesus is speaking to Pharisees, not every Jewish person! And if you read the entire passage (instead of merely picking through the parts you like), you'll find that he is speaking of their spiritual state, not anything racial or ethnic (being that Jesus would be insulting himself). Also, were the Pharisees being "anti-semitic" when they accuse Jesus of being demon-possessed in the same passage???? Why didn't you bring that up?
| QUOTE |
| the Jews are a "synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) |
The churches to whom John is writing had been experiencing some heavy persecution from Romans and Jews. John associates the Jews who persecuted Christians with satan. Whether you agree with any of the theology or not, John does not have it in for his own people here. There's stuff in Revelations later that disses Rome and Romans as well. Does that make John "anti-Roman"? By the by, it's a good chance that many of the churches John was writing to had as members Jewish and Roman Christians.
| QUOTE |
| Paul summed up the denunciation of the Jews with the inflammatory declaration that the Jews are "hostile to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:15). |
Paul is alluded to how he hooked up with the Thesslonicans, which can be found in Acts 17. Interesting that in that passage there are Jewish folks who were cool with Paul and those who persecuted him. Paul is alluding to the later here. Once again, being that some of the Thessalonicans were Jewish, it's hard to believe that Paul is being anti-semitic here.
| QUOTE |
| Matthew 8:12 Jews cast into outer darkness |
In the whole passage, a Roman centurion comes up to Jesus asking for Jesus to heal a slave of his. Long story short, the Roman guy exhibits such faith in Jesus, that Jesus compliments him, saying that he hasn't found this kind of faith in Israel [i.e., among his own Jewish people]. The statement is meant derisively, because Israel will not accept Jesus. Throughout the gospels Jesus is perturbed that the teachers and scholars amongst his people don't recognize the Messiah. Jesus goes on to use the centurion's faith as an illustration of how even the gentiles get while some Jewish folks do not. He says that on the day of judgment, people will come from all over the earth to recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while many Jewish people will miss out and be cast into outer darkness. Jesus is not speaking of every Jewish person for all time; he's speaking clearly of those who deny him. This applies to gentiles as well: Do you think Jesus believed that every gentile would recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If you use the rest of Jesus's teachings as a contextual backdrop for this passage, instead of isolating convenient tid-bits, you'll see that neither blanket favor for the gentiles nor blanket condemnation for the Jews is in view here.
| QUOTE |
| Mark 13:9 in synagogues you shall be beaten |
They were. And how is this anti-semitic?
| QUOTE |
| Acts 7:51-53 persecute prophets; betrayers & murderers |
Stephen is speaking specifically to the Sanhedrin here. This is along the same lines as the Matthew 23 passage.
| QUOTE |
| Acts 13:45-51 Jews reject word of God, so turn to Gentiles |
Paul speaking of the Jews folks who incited a crowd against him and ran him out of town. Verse 43 speaks of those Jews and proselytes (gentile converts to Judaism) who were cool with Paul.
| QUOTE |
| Titus 1:10-14 they of circumcision...must be stopped |
What you're quoting is actually from Titus 1. 10-11. Here's the full quote: 10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things that they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
"Those of the circumcision" refers to either Jews or Jewish proto-gnostics; we don't know which. Clearly, the emphasis here is on false teaching and deceptive behavior. Though he's is speaking of people who are Jewish, how is this tantamount to anti-semitism? Is a dislike of some Jewish people tantamount to anti-semitism?
"Those of the circumcision" refers to either Jews or Jewish proto-gnostics; we don't know which. Clearly, the emphasis here is on false teaching and deceptive behavior. Though he's is speaking of people who are Jewish, how is this tantamount to anti-semitism? Is a dislike of some Jewish people tantamount to anti-semitism?
| QUOTE |
| John 16:2, 3 whoever kills you will think he does God a service |
This happened, just as Jesus said. This in no way is a license for anyone to hurt or persecute Jewish people.
| QUOTE |
| Luke 20:9-16, Matt 13:36-43, and Luke 19:12-27 are parables which speak of Gentiles inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven while Jews are cast into Hell. |
Ummm, you really didn't read this material very thoroughly, Chauncy. Luke 19. 9-16 makes absolutely no reference to Jews or gentiles! While Luke 20. 9-16 does reference Jewish people, it in no way refers to gentiles. In fact, the Luke 20 passage doesn't refer to the kingdom of heaven at all!!
Great scholarship! In the parable, those who have been entrusted with the care-taking of the vineyard are Jews, but to draw from this the inferrence that all Jews will be placed in hell is silly. And the Matthew 13.36-43 passage is not referencing Jews or gentiles
!!!! The wheat [good seed] and the tares [bad seed] are sons of the kingdom and sons of the sons evil one, respectively. Being a son of the kingdom or a son of the evil one is dependent upon one's spiritual, not racial/ethnic, state! Jesus says nothing of Jews or gentiles here.It seems to me that you did what most people do when broaching this issue: You went throught the New Testament and tried to find any negative reference to Jewish people from the lips of Jesus or his disciples/apostles. Then, you automatically assumed--with an apparent disregard for context and content--that any negative aspersion cast upon any Jewish person or group is the same as blanket antipathy toward any and all Jews for all time, which includes de facto eternal punishment for anyone Jewish. I'll tell ya what, why not use this same methodology on the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament]--particularly the writings of folks like Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Isaiah! Using your methodology, you'll be forced to view the prophets of God as anti-Semites too!! Or...perhahps...perhaps...your methodology is wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Ok, I'm confused now. Wasn't there a story where the apostles were kind of irritated because a Gentile woman reached out and touched Jesus' robe? I was under the impression that at that moment Jesus changed and realized that Gentile's were people too (I did it!). |
Moonbaby,
The passage of which you speak is Mark ch 5, vv 25-34. Please read the actual story. Jesus is in a crowd of people on his way to the house of a synagogue ruler named Jairus. Jairus had asked Jesus to heal his daughter, and Jesus was on his way to Jairus's house to perform this (he does at the end of the passage, by the by). A crowd is pressing in on him, and a woman touches his garment. The woman had had a menstrual disorder that left her bleeding constantly, and she thought that touching Jesus would heal her. She did this anonymously. There is nothing explicit from the passage that says the woman was a Jew or gentile, but the way in which she tried to be anonymous in touching Jesus gives us a clue. The secretive way in which she went about things tends to indicate that she was Jewish. The reason: The Jewish purity laws would have left a woman in menstration ritually impure during the menstrual period. Well, a woman with a menstrual disorder like this lady had would have been ritually impure for an even longer period (12 years, according to the passage!). When ritually impure people came into contact with others, those they touched also became ritually impure. That said, you can imagine how undercover such a person wished to remain because 1) she was touching the very-popular Jesus; and 2) she had to have come in physical contact with many people in the crowd around Jesus! It seems that only a Jewish woman would be astute enough to figure out all of the implications of such contact.
The disciples do not get mad at the woman. They can't: they don't know who touched him. They are perturbed that, out of all the people pressing in on him, Jesus is taking time to find out who touched him. Also, they probably are thinking: Why are you wasting time trying to figure out who touched you when we're on our way to heal the daughter of a big temple muckety-muck like Jairus! Move on, man! People touch you all the time! Jesus calls the woman out, not to embarrass her, but to dignify her. Because her condition left her ritually unclean, that means she was on the outside of the Jewish community to some degree. In calling her out, Jesus is showing the entire community that she's is once again part of the community. He pronounces shalom on her ("go in peace", v 34), and she leaves. Check the story out in the New Testament. It's pretty cool.
| QUOTE |
| the New Testament was written years after Jesus' death mostly by gentiles who had converted from Judaism or Pagan beliefs, or former Jews with a grudge against thier old religion(like Paul). The Jews feel that the they are downplayed and minimized for the sake of a new religion which was for them just a subsect of Judaism in the first place.. |
Falco Rex,
Can you produce anything that shows that the New Testament was written by gentiles? That's pretty far-fetched.
The New Testament was written by religious and ethnic Jews. The familiarity they show with Jewish culture/customs and religion smacks of an insider POV. The only writer who may not have been ethnically Jewish was Luke, who many speculate was a gentile who had become Jewish [a proselyte] who later became a Christian through Paul's ministry.
I actually participated in a dialogue at the Jewish Community Center in my town a few months ago. We were talking about this exact issue, with the release of the Passion movie as a backdrop. One thing that can help us get on a solid footing concerning the New Testament and anti-semitism is understanding something about the Judaism of Jesus's time.
Judaism was unified in the sense that Jews understood themselves to be a nation in covenant relationship to God with the God-ordained vocation of being his redemptive agent in the world. All Jews were linked by the focus on Levitical Law and all the ritual obligations entailed within this. Also, Jews understood that something was drastically wrong with the fact that the Romans had punked out the Jewish nation and were now occupying the Land of Promise. All Jews (with the exception of the Saduccees) looked forward to the day when God would in some way liberate his people from the gentile rule and cause them to live uninterrupted in their own land. All believed that God would somehow do this through the agency of his "Anointed One" or messiah.
This is where Judaism became factionalized. The Jews disagreed on how God was going to do this and how Israel should ready herself nationally to be ready for the advent of God's liberation.
The Pharisees took an egalitarian approach. They believed that the priesthood was somewhat (not entirely) corrupt. So they sought to take the holiness code that was meant for the priests and to apply this to every Israelite. In their minds, this would make Israel ready for the coming of the Messiah. In response to the defiling priesthood, the Pharisees developed a strong dependence on the oral traditions of rabbis to help them cope with the diminshing status of the priesthood.
The Saduccees renounced a belief in anything in the Hebrew scriptures outside of the Pentateuch. They didn't believe in angels or demons, and they didn't believe in resurrection (as opposed to the Pharisees, who believed in all of these things). Because they profited monetarily and in status from the Roman rule, they tended to promote the status quo, thus growing cold to God's liberation of Israel through any divine agent (including the Messiah). Their wealth and serious sway with the Jewish priesthood kept them a force to be reckoned with with, though they were few in number. The Saduccees and Pharisees didn't dig each other a whole lot.
The zealotswere outlaws who sought to pave the way for the Messiah's coming by taking back the Promised Land, especially the temple. An example of this is in the Maccabean Revolt, which Jews celebrate during Hannukhah. Barabbas was a zealot. They were terrorists against the Roman government. For the zealots, it was their God-given duty to try and take back the kingdom.
The Essenesare better known as the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. After a falling out with the Pharisees and others over who should be the high priest, they pretty much said, "Sayonara!" to all of their Jewish compatriots and they segregated themselves in caves. While here, they lived rigorously ascetic lives, and they believed themselves to be the chosen remnant of God, whom God would favor when He sent the messiahs (they believed in more than one) to destroy both the gentile occupiers of the Promised Land and the unfaithful Jews (every Jew except for them).
Then along comes Jesus. Had Jesus sought to jump on the messianic band-wagon of any of these groups (except the Saduccees, for obvious reasons), he would've been hailed as the Messiah. In fact, the issue that Jesus had with all of the groups was that he was not the messiah they expected. The things that Jesus did that garnered the ire of his people were things like: hanging out with tax-collectors, prostitutes, and Samaritans and not paying attention to some of the non-biblical oral traditions that the Pharisees adhered to, especially the ones pertaining to ritual purity.
Also, Jesus's radical messianic program garnered him no friends either. He claimed that: 1) There was new covenant a-comin' (a la Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36) which makes things like the much-vaunted temple, corporate, ethnic nationhood, and ritual purity obselete; 2) Gentiles would be incorporated into this new covenant alongside Jews. In fact, "the kingdom of God" that Jews had been looking for looked like a motely crew of Jews, gentiles, the poor, the lame, the ritually unclean, women, and having table fellowship with one another (a huge expression of intimacy in this culture); 3) Entry into this kindgom of God was dependent upon one's response to the personhood of Jesus, which included his crucifixion and resurrection.
With all this in view, Jesus does start yet another faction of Judaism, furnished with his own kingdom-of-God program and critiques of his fellow Jews. The critiques are not anti-Semitic in any way! Though you may not agree with them, they are intra-cultural, intra-religious critiques that are in no way rooted in some kind of anti-Jewish pedagogy! The Pharisees had such critiques of their own people as well! The Pharisees excluded gamblers, all herdsmen, tax-collectors, shopkeepers, physicians, tanners, and others from Jewish religious and civic rights and privileges. The Essenes excluded from their community anyone with a flesh-blemish, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the mute, and the elderly and infirmed. Interestingly, many of the folks listed by the Pharisees and Essenes here are exactly the kinds of people Jesus surrounded himself with. As harsh (and wrong-headed) as the Pharisaic and Essene exclusions are, one could not say that they were anti-semitic.
What you are seeing is intra-cultural/intra-religious critiques here. The Jews were acquainted with such critiques! Ever read any Old Testament prophetic writings?!?!? NOTHING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAKS AS HARSHLY ABOUT SOME JEWISH PEOPLE AS THE OLD TESTAMENT DOES!!!! Yet we would be utterly foolish to claim that the prophets Moses, Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah (among others) are anti-Semities!! No Jews believe these prophets to be anti-Semites! Yet, if you read some of the things they wrote, they were exceedingly more harsh than anything any New Testament author ever penned.
As an African-American, I sometimes get into heated debates about certain issues that pertain to the black American experience with my fellow African-Americans. However, this never means that I'm "anti-black" or something. That would be ridiculous. The belief that Jesus and/or his disciples were anti-Semites is equally ridiculous.
trublvyr,
..When I say that the new Testament,I mean just that,it was physically put down on paper by gentiles.At least the form of the Bible we have today was. I'm sure that there has been many changes to the text over time. It happens with any story.
Hebrew doesn't translate well under the best of circumstances..
The first translations must no doubt have been into Greek and Latin Vulgate. Greek would seem suitable enough but as I'm sure you're aware that Latin is VERY limited in it's vocabulary,and the Latin is what the English version was translated from..
I wonder how much has been lost or added over time..
Nor did I ever say that the New Testament was Anti-Semitic. If that's what you took from it then I didn't express myself in my post well enough..
What was saying is that many Jews are right to feel resentful towards Christianity in general, especially in light of the treatment they've recieved at the Churches hands over the years. I'm also pointing out that I believe that Christianity should probably still be considered a sect of Judaism and not something completely seperate. The God is the same, even though the worship and some of the beliefs are not. The division has been the cause of far too much hatred over the centuries.
I don't think anyone can argue that the Christians have turned on thier Jewish brothers as the Catholic Church gained ascendancy.
Inquisitions and expulsions throughout history have shown this to be true. It is not an indictment of every Christian alive, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let's face it, modern religion of every stripe has gone a long way astray from where it's founders intended them to..
..When I say that the new Testament,I mean just that,it was physically put down on paper by gentiles.At least the form of the Bible we have today was. I'm sure that there has been many changes to the text over time. It happens with any story.
Hebrew doesn't translate well under the best of circumstances..
The first translations must no doubt have been into Greek and Latin Vulgate. Greek would seem suitable enough but as I'm sure you're aware that Latin is VERY limited in it's vocabulary,and the Latin is what the English version was translated from..
I wonder how much has been lost or added over time..
Nor did I ever say that the New Testament was Anti-Semitic. If that's what you took from it then I didn't express myself in my post well enough..
What was saying is that many Jews are right to feel resentful towards Christianity in general, especially in light of the treatment they've recieved at the Churches hands over the years. I'm also pointing out that I believe that Christianity should probably still be considered a sect of Judaism and not something completely seperate. The God is the same, even though the worship and some of the beliefs are not. The division has been the cause of far too much hatred over the centuries.
I don't think anyone can argue that the Christians have turned on thier Jewish brothers as the Catholic Church gained ascendancy.
Inquisitions and expulsions throughout history have shown this to be true. It is not an indictment of every Christian alive, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let's face it, modern religion of every stripe has gone a long way astray from where it's founders intended them to..
Wow, I learn more from ur few posts trublvr, than I ever learned by going to church for several years. Keep up the good posts, man.
| QUOTE |
| When I say that the new Testament,I mean just that,it was physically put down on paper by gentiles.At least the form of the Bible we have today was. I'm sure that there has been many changes to the text over time. It happens with any story. Hebrew doesn't translate well under the best of circumstances.. The first translations must no doubt have been into Greek and Latin Vulgate. Greek would seem suitable enough but as I'm sure you're aware that Latin is VERY limited in it's vocabulary,and the Latin is what the English version was translated from.. I wonder how much has been lost or added over time.. |
Falco Rex,
I have to take exception with a few things you've written. Assuming that there have been significant changes to the Old or New Testaments of the bible just because of translation is incorrect. The fact that Jewish people were the first to write down both the Old and New Testaments is significant, because Jewish people were highly trained when it came to transmitting things orally. This is hard for us to imagine due to our technological proficiency when it comes to transmitting/storing information. If we are going to say that the texts have been changed from their original form, then it is incumbent upon us to produce (if possible) the original document and then go from there. How do we measure incorrectness without the "correct" document? If you were told by a professor that an answer on your test was wrong, and you asked him to show you the right answer, would you be satisfied if he simply said, "Well, you must've gotten something wrong because no one is infallible!"?
The apostles were the first to write things the New Testament in Greek, outside of Matthew, which was orginally written in Aramaic. They wrote the New Testament writings in Greek, though Jesus and they spoke Aramaic, because they understood the imperative of bringing gentiles into the family of God. Their reasoning was like this: If the God of the universe could translate Himself into a man [Jesus] to communicate Himself to us, then why shouldn't we translate our writings into the language of the gentiles to communicate the good news to them? To make the gentiles learn Aramaic would smack of a sort of cultural supremacy that is out of line with the character of Jesus and the Spirit of God, which was given to spiritually internalize and universalize all of the exernal and material components of Judaism.
As far as the Old Testament goes, you are correct that Hebrew is very difficult to translate. As far as we know, though, Jewish people were the first to translate the Old Testament. When I talk to my Jewish friends about the Old Testament they never tell me that the English version is corrupted. Also, when you read the introductions to most translations, they are pretty upfront about the sources they used to translate. Many contemporary translations use the Masoretic Text, which is in Hebrew and was written by Jewish people. In fact, I think this is what Jewish people use when they read the Old Testament. So many translators are getting this straight from Jewish people. Addtionally, Jewish scholars are constantly consulted, as are Jewish rabbinical commentaries. Gentile translators are not in the dark when working with the Old Testament materials. Usually, and rightfully, Jewish scholars and commentators are their guides.
| QUOTE |
| I don't think anyone can argue that the Christians have turned on thier Jewish brothers as the Catholic Church gained ascendancy. Inquisitions and expulsions throughout history have shown this to be true. |
Falco, you and I have absolutely no argument on this point. My Jewish friends have made me confront some very ugly truths about what the church has done in the name of Christ. And there is no excuse. People who would persecute any Jewish people in the name of Jesus are disgusting and repugnant, and they should be excommunicated. I'm with you 100%, Falco.
| QUOTE |
| Let's face it, modern religion of every stripe has gone a long way astray from where it's founders intended them to.. |
You're right in some respects. But keep in mind that there are still churches that doing right--even here in the West, where church-folk have been at their most stupid at times. Also, all over the world right now, there are amazing Christians from places like Africa, South America, and all parts of Asia that are living consistently with the way of Christ. Rightfully, most of these things are happening among the poor and oppressed, which seems to me is the exact description of the kind of folks who tended to dig Jesus in the New Testament. This is going on in pockets of the West as well. Don't be discouraged, Falco! It's not that there's no Jesus-revolution going on; it's just that the revolution isn't being televised! Theres' more to Jesus than rich, stupid tele-evangelists and evil popes. Jesus-followin' folks are out there--Catholic and Protestant.
| QUOTE |
| Keep in mind that every book in the bible, including the New Testament, is written by Jewish people |
Yes under duress of their Roman over lords! A lot of Jews claim that the reason why Pilate was some what exonerated from the execution of Jesus is because the NT account says that he did it as a result of pleas from the Jews. What Jew is going to implicate the Roman leadership by explaining that Pilate was a blood thirsty tyrrant(which he was). you are almost speaking as if you believe that the very book you hold in front of you is the factual chain of events, untouched and inerrant.
The book has been edited and changed through out time, books have been added, omitted, some re-written (end of Job). Who did all this refurbishing of scripture?.....of course the Gentiles!
| QUOTE |
| That the Jewish nation has historically shown severe disdain toward its own prophets |
Towards their prophets or your prophets? Your words themselves show this propagandist view that the Jews refer too.I stated that "some Jews feel that..." Are you saying they don't feel this? And some Christians use the NT as a source for this Anti-semetism are you saying that some don't?
Chauncy said
| QUOTE |
| Chauncy said "The Jews feel that the whole NT testament is anti Jewish and they may be right |
I pointed the areas in which the Jewish that say the NT is antisemetic use as reference. I said they may be right, not only from those texts but I've personally heard christians refer to Jews in a belittling manner openly. They don't subscribe to your fictional chain of events because they are just that...fiction!
Do I think the Bible should be used to condemn anyone?....absolutely NOT!!!!Do I think that any battle should be justified by scripture ...NO!!!
The verses I listed were the references that Jews say is the source of this idea...why?.....its all a matter of interpretation!! If any written work that can create so much trubl from different interpretations is a written work that needs not play a role in society......This difference of interpretation is the exact reason for so many different sects of christianity.....are they all right Trublvr ....or just you!!?
You can see where Jews get this notion from! It is the interpretation of said scriptures that many people have used to persecute Jews.....are you saying they didn't?
| QUOTE |
| Using your methodology, you'll be forced to view the prophets of God as anti-Semites too!! Or...perhahps...perhaps...your methodology is wrong. |
Or perhaps....perhaps the prophets of God are fictional.
| QUOTE |
| A lot of Jews claim that the reason why Pilate was some what exonerated from the execution of Jesus is because the NT account says that he did it as a result of pleas from the Jews. What Jew is going to implicate the Roman leadership by explaining that Pilate was a blood thirsty tyrrant(which he was). |
None of gospels writers exonerate Pilate from his complicity in Jesus's death. What many people have a problem with is that some Jews were implicated at all by the New Testament writers. We know from secular history that Pilate was on the outs with the Roman Empire because of his bloodthirsty treatment of Jews. Showing that he killed Jesus in order to please the mob is not an exoneration by the gospel writers. What we see is a smarmy, spineless politician negotiating simply because his Roman superiors had an eye on him
And in response to your question: "What Jew is going to implicate the Roman leadership by explaining that Pilate was a blood thirsty tyrant?" Well, Luke the gospel writer, for one: Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. (Luke ch 13, v 1)Doesn't jibe with your theory does it?
Also, in case you're confused about whether or not SOME (i.e., NOT ALL) Jewish people had a hand in Jesus's death, then let me refer you to two Jewish sources which I have in my library.
From the Babylonian Talmud, which was compiled between 200 and 500 AD, a writer writes of the Sanhedrin:
"It has been taught: On the Eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out in front of him, for forty days saying: 'he is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the Eve of Passover."
This is in reference to things the Sanhedrin did. There is no dispute. Once again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL JEWS DURING JESUS'S TIME OR AFTER JESUS'S TIME ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEMISE!!! It only goes to show that there is some culpability on the part of some Jews during Jesus's time.
The second reference is from Maimonides, the great 13th century rabbi:
"Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Messiah and was executed by the court was in Daniel's prophecies as 'the vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'"
Maimondes's "court" reference was to the Sanhedrin.
| QUOTE | ||
Towards their prophets or your prophets? Your words themselves show this propagandist view that the Jews refer too.I stated that "some Jews feel that..." Are you saying they don't feel this? And some Christians use the NT as a source for this Anti-semetism are you saying that some don't? |
What are you talking about? Have you read the Old Testament? This happened sometimes. Ask some Jewish people. My Jewish friends have no problems acknowledging this, nor do they think me an anti-Semite for bringing it up. Also, check it out for yourself: I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God ost hosts; for the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and slain your prophets with the sword; an dI even I only, am left; and seek my life, to take it away. (1 Kings ch 19, v 10). And these people were not under Graeco-Roman rule! And in regards to whether I believe that some so-called Christians have used the New Testament to persecute Jews, please read my second response to Falco Rex.
| QUOTE |
| The verses I listed were the references that Jews say is the source of this idea...why?.....its all a matter of interpretation!! If any written work that can create so much trubl from different interpretations is a written work that needs not play a role in society......This difference of interpretation is the exact reason for so many different sects of christianity.....are they all right Trublvr ....or just you!!? |
It doesn't take a genius of interpretation to see that anti-Semitism is not in view when one looks at the passages in context of their immediate settings and in context of the bible on the whole. One can only come to an anti-Semitic reading of the New Testament if you started out with that disposition already. This is the stance of many Jewish scholars, including Dennis Prager, who is a Jewish scholar and radio-show host. In addition to a prior assumption of anti-Semitism, you can come to believe that the New Testament is anti-Jewish if you
1) Ignore the fact that Jesus, the apostles, the early disciples and the first few thousand Christians were are culturally and ethnically Jewish. The earliest Christians (all Jews) kept kosher, kept the Jewish prayer times, went to synagogue (a tradition which lasted until about the 4th century), and did a whole host of other things that were decidedly Jewish.
2) Ignore those pesky commandments to love as God loves and as one would have oneself loved, stated by folks like Jesus (in the gospels) and the apostles (in the letters).
3) Ignore a lot of Pauline stuff like this: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians ch 3, vv 28-29; he restates this in Colossians ch 3, vv 9-11 and Romans ch 10, vv 11-13). And this: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true, though every man may be false.. (Romans ch 3, vv 1-4, emphasis mine). And this: I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, an descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. (Romans ch 11, vv 1-2; restated somewhat in Philippians ch 3, vv 2-8).
4) Ignore very innovative and nuanced ways the church handled some of the cultural conflict between Jewish and gentile believers in the church. A few scriptures for you to look up: Acts ch 15; Galatians ch 2, vv 1-10; Romans ch 14, vv 10-23; Romans chs 2-4. Romans keeps coming up because the Roman church was half Jewish, half Gentile.
5) Ignore every unabashedly Jewish theological reference, which continued to be a part of the church's theology and language long after Gentiles began to join en mass. Stuff like: Jesus as Son of/ from the lineage of David; all Christ-followers as "children of Abraham" and "children of Sarah"; the heavenly destination of God's kids as "heavenly Jerusalem"; statments like, "Salvation is from the Jews" (uttered by Jesus as he spoke to a Samaritan); and continued references to the Hebrew bible and Old Testament (Jewish) prophets and people as wonderful models for morality and holiness toward God.
Yeah, Chauncy, if you ignore all of that (and much more), you could get an anti-Semitic interpretation from the New Testament!
| QUOTE |
| And in response to your question: "What Jew is going to implicate the Roman leadership by explaining that Pilate was a blood thirsty tyrant?" Well, Luke the gospel writer, for one: Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. (Luke ch 13, v 1)Doesn't jibe with your theory does it |
Trublvr I don't get it, your using Bible scripture to prove bible scripture.
Your telling us that the Jews were not worried about offending the Roman leadership, when we know the implications of doing so were severe.
Then you cite a bible scripture to elucidate this fact. As if the scripture from which you speak has not fallen victim to the same influence that you have. There is most certainly a compositional strategy involved with the refinement of scriptures.
"Today we know of just over thirty papyrus manuscripts of New Testament books which can be dated before the fourth century. That number is small in comparison with the scores of copies of Homer and the dozens of copies of other famous Greek authors."
"Each copy [of the New Testament texts] has its own oddities and mistakes: no two are completely identical, or the same as the Codex Sinaiticus [ca. 350 C.E.] or other later manuscripts....In the Gospels there are about seventy places altogether where scholars are doubtful about the original reading - that is to say are unsure whether one group of manuscripts or another has the correct words. Few of these places impinge on any major Christian doctrine, and in no case does any uncertainty affect the Christian faith."
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus
About 175 years separates Jesus from the earliest copies of the gospels.
"The problems for the reconstruction of the best archetype for the manuscript tradition is more or less identical with the assumed autograph is precarious. The oldest known archetypes are separated from the autographs by more than a century. Textual critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur."
- Helmut Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century", in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (1989)
| QUOTE |
| This is in reference to things the Sanhedrin did. There is no dispute. Once again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL JEWS DURING JESUS'S TIME OR AFTER JESUS'S TIME ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEMISE!!! It only goes to show that there is some culpability on the part of some Jews during Jesus's time |
How nice of you to so largely print this statement. But the way you ended with "there is some culpability on the part of some Jews during Jesus's time".....geez I wonder if this culpability you mention has anything to do with the Anti-semitic attitude to which I refer.....at least you said it......took you ten miles of fluffy scripture to do it but none-the-less you said it.
"The New Testament contains 102 references to the Jews of the most degrading and malevolent kind," wrote Dagobert Runes, "thereby creating in the minds and hearts of the Christian children and adults ineradicable hatred toward the Jewish people."
Simple fact Trublvr is that the Jews were looked upon as heretics because they wouldn't subscribe to your main dude Jesus, they wanted to hold on to their traditions. For this reason they were persecuted through out time. Anybody that would subscribe so fanatically to the words of Jesus would naturally have an animosity towards someone that doesn't believe in his divine origins....look at the history of your religion!!!
Sure a lot of scripture can be called apon to refresh the look of any christian in the face of any words that may paint them in a bad light. The New Testament, obviously, portrays many Jews in ancient Israel as corrupt, inniquitous, and separated from God. Does this description, therefore, mean that the book is anti-Jewish?.....guess that would be up for interpretation.......history has shown us that it has been interpretated as such.
You seem to imply that you yourself do not subscribe to this interpretation and if you keep this stance even in the face of other christians then this is good, if by chance you are of another notion in the company of fellow believers, well then this you must live with.
| QUOTE |
| Trublvr I don't get it, your using Bible scripture to prove bible scripture. |
Actually, I used the Bible and two non-biblical Jewish quotations! The Babylonian Talmud and the Maimonides references are both extra-biblical!!!! Didn't you read my response? Or were the Jewish writers of the Babylonian Talmud and Maimonides the rabbi in on this grand conspiracy to "christainize" history as well? You seem to be assuming that if any point supports the Christian outlook, then Christians must have sabotaged it! Please go to some Jewish rabbis and explain to them how Christians got hold of and corrupted the Babylonian Talmud and the works of Maimonides! Let me know what they tell you.
Also, I used an Old Testament quote to back up some things I've said! Even if you could satisfactorily argue manipulation in reference to the New Testament material (and you have not!), what of the 1 Kings passage I quoted to support one of my points? Or did Christians change this too? And how did they do it? Oh, I'm sorry, because it supports a Christian outlook, you are not obligated to show how the deception happens; there's just an a priori assumption that deception was involved because the Christian outlook came out on top! My mistake!
| QUOTE |
| Then you cite a bible scripture to elucidate this fact. As if the scripture from which you speak has not fallen victim to the same influence that you have. There is most certainly a compositional strategy involved with the refinement of scriptures. |
You assume these things without proof. Outside of the fact that the scriptures show your theory to be deficient and the Christian outlook to be more true to history, please demonstrate how any of the statements I've shown from the New Testament are false!
Something interesting has emerged here. I've truly learned something, and not just from you, Chauncy, but from many folks who rail against Christianity on this and many other threads. When one states that the New Testament is anti-Semitic, or that the God of Israel is just a big meannie, or that Jesus was really a freemason, bi-sexual carpenter from Venus, we can assume that the contents of the bible are useful and/or true to the extent that they prove our points. If God, Israel, Jesus and any other thing can be shown to be inconsistent with what Jews and Christians believe about their God and events surrounding their religions, then we must ascribe to the bible a limited measure of veracity. However, when someone wants to refute these very same points using these very same biblical texts, then everyone hollers something similar to what you've stated: "You can't use the bible to prove the bible!" So you can use the New Testament to prove that Jesus and his boys were card-carrying anti-Semites, while I cannot use the bible (or Talmudic and rabbinical works, apparently) to prove my points! How convenient for you, Chauncy.
Let me show you a better way to engage in true discussion that doesn't involve such inconsistent methodology. For about 5 years now I've been involved in Muslim-Christian dialogues with some a great group of Muslims at two universities in my town. Though there is much that Christians and Muslims agree on, it goes without saying that we also have much that we just don't see eye to eye on.
I do not believe the Q'uran (the Muslim holy book) to be any more inspired by God than you believe the Old and New Testaments to be. However, if I have a point to raise about the content of the Q'uran, I assume a suspension of that belief so that I may be able to speak and learn about the Q'uran from an outsider point of view. My Muslim friends, who believe in the bible to the extent that it lines up with the Q'uran, afford me the same courtesy. So, if I say something about the Q'uran, and my Muslim friends successfully use the Q'uran to refute what I have proposed (this has happened), then I don't just say, "Well, it doesn't matter anyway, because your holy book isn't true or accurate!" I admit my error and allow them to teach me what's right concerning their holy book. I still walk away believing that the Q'uran did not really come about as a result of divine inspiration from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I also walk away having learned something from them about what's actually in their holy book.
I have had to suspend my disbelief many times in order to explore what their scriptures have to say. If I were not willing to do so, then no true conversation could really take place. If I were not willing to have a temporary suspension of my disbelief, then my Muslim friends could say, "Then why are you wasting our time debating in the first place?" And they would be absolutely right for asking.
The stance that many here have adopted precludes any learning about what any religion or religious text actually teaches. You don't have to convert to a religion to learn about it! So, when you claim that the New Testament is anti-Semitic, and then I demonstrate that it is not, using the Old Testament, the New Testament, and some talmudic and rabbinical material, it makes no sense for you to turn to the same text you are critiquing and then say, "Oh, well it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or not, because your text is not accurate/historical anyway!" It simply begs the question: Then why bother trying to figure out if it is anti-Semitic in the first place? The remedy for religiously-oriented anti-Semitism would be just to tell religiously-oriented anti-Semites that the events of the bible never happened in the first place, so cancel your membership to the Hitler Youth!
But even Jewish people don't agree with you here. In fact, whenever Jewish people and Christians seek to deal significantly with the problem of anti-Semitism in the name of Jesus, what they typically do is to agree that a very real, historical Jesus taught some revolutionary things about the love of one's neighbor and the willful giving of one's life for that very same neighbor. Both parties temporarily suspend their differences about Jesus (which are crucial) and they find common ground concerning the teachings, lifestyle, and persona of Christ to eradicate what they both hate: any kind of hatred, oppression, and persecution inflicted upon someone for the God-given gift of their race or ethnicity.
Since I've prattled on about what Jews do or don't feel, then let me leave you with some words from Jewish people. Contextually, all of these quotes were made in response to anti-Semitism, the New Testament writings, and Gibson's Passion movie:
First, most American Christians -- Catholic and Protestant -- believe that a sinning humanity killed Jesus, not "the Jews." Second, they know that Christ's entire purpose was to come to this world and to be killed for humanity's sins. To the Christian, God made it happen, not the Jews or the Romans (the Book of Acts says precisely that). Third, a Christian who hates Jews today for what he believes some Jews did 2,000 years ago only reflects on the low moral, intellectual and religious state of that Christian. Imagine what Jews would think of a Jew who hated Egyptians after watching "The Ten Commandments," and you get an idea of how most Christians would regard a Christian who hated Jews after watching "The Passion." —Dennis Prager, from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20031028.shtml
But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides....
—David Klinghoffer, L.A. Times
I have thought for a long time that the argument about the crucifixion of Jesus [Jewish or Roman responsibility] is entirely beside the point, and I have been confirmed in my view by rereading the book of Luke. "Was it not necessary," Luke writes, "that the Christ [Messiah] should suffer these things and enter to his glory?" The point is made, over and over again, that Jesus willed his own crucifixion as necessary to his mission to atone for the sins of all humankind. This makes theological sense. If the crucifixion was necessary to atone for a cosmic trauma, "the fall of man," then it was a necessary and inevitable expression of divine intention....The only way that arguing about guilt for the crucifixion makes any sense is to deny the fundamental tenet of Christian theology that Jesus was the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. If this is denied, the argument is then reduced to the question of who was responsible for the terrible end of the life of a carpenter from Nazareth.
—Arthur Herzberg
Sorry this is so long, but this is issue is quite dear to me (in case you couldn't tell).
The problem with this thread is that we can all argue till the cows come home over Jesus and the validity of the New Testament. We all have strong opinions which can be backed up, but we have to be careful of our sources, including the Bible.
The only real way we will ever be able to come to a definitive conclusion is to go back to when Jesus was alive and follow the events as they happened. I think we will all learn something from such an exercise......but I think that Christianity is going to be the one most effected by such an effort. It will probably not be for the good either (as Christianity stands now).
The only real way we will ever be able to come to a definitive conclusion is to go back to when Jesus was alive and follow the events as they happened. I think we will all learn something from such an exercise......but I think that Christianity is going to be the one most effected by such an effort. It will probably not be for the good either (as Christianity stands now).
Might be damaging if we could actaully do it, but we can't, so we have to go with what we've got. The bible is not anti semetic, though I have no doubt politicians and the occasional cantankerous religious leader would certainly twist the scriptures to their own interpretation, so isolating one or two parts of the bible which either back up the yes argument or reinforce the no is useless to which extent trublvr is right.
BUT, I think we're missing the point here. What we are arguing is the differences between the religions, and how far one interacts with the other in the texts, yet there is one thing that the Koran, Bible and the Jewish texts, of which there are many, all agree on that undermines any argument that the three great religions have anything to bicker about - THEY ALL REFER TO THE SAME GOD. Allah, God and Yaweh, the same chap, the same fellow. We are all worshippers of exactly the same deity, which in part also goees for Hinduism as it worships myriad manifestations of the same single God, and Buddism, which although does not quite go so far as to say one deity does refer to one life force, which is a non humanised expression of the same thing.
Therefore Christians cannot be anti-semetic because they have no cause to be. We can't condemn them for being heathens because they believe in the same God, just as Muslims can't call Christians non believers because we do believe in Allah under another name. So whether or not the New Testament can be used by twisted minds to justify any atrocity they care to call religious when in most cases it is pure politics is irrelevant. The intepretation can differ, but the overall message, thou shalt have one God and no other, runs true for all of us and we would have a hard time debating who amongst us was right in terms of HOW we worshipped - and you cannot condemn people for 'worshipping the wrong way', otherwise I would have been excommunicated years ago for talking direct to the big cheese without going via a priest.
BUT, I think we're missing the point here. What we are arguing is the differences between the religions, and how far one interacts with the other in the texts, yet there is one thing that the Koran, Bible and the Jewish texts, of which there are many, all agree on that undermines any argument that the three great religions have anything to bicker about - THEY ALL REFER TO THE SAME GOD. Allah, God and Yaweh, the same chap, the same fellow. We are all worshippers of exactly the same deity, which in part also goees for Hinduism as it worships myriad manifestations of the same single God, and Buddism, which although does not quite go so far as to say one deity does refer to one life force, which is a non humanised expression of the same thing.
Therefore Christians cannot be anti-semetic because they have no cause to be. We can't condemn them for being heathens because they believe in the same God, just as Muslims can't call Christians non believers because we do believe in Allah under another name. So whether or not the New Testament can be used by twisted minds to justify any atrocity they care to call religious when in most cases it is pure politics is irrelevant. The intepretation can differ, but the overall message, thou shalt have one God and no other, runs true for all of us and we would have a hard time debating who amongst us was right in terms of HOW we worshipped - and you cannot condemn people for 'worshipping the wrong way', otherwise I would have been excommunicated years ago for talking direct to the big cheese without going via a priest.
No no no, I dont completely buy this "All the same God" stuff... because different religions portray their Gods differently.
| QUOTE |
| Actually, I used the Bible and two non-biblical Jewish quotations! The Babylonian Talmud and the Maimonides references are both extra-biblical!!!! Didn't you read my response? Or were the Jewish writers of the Babylonian Talmud and Maimonides the rabbi in on this grand conspiracy to "christainize" history as well? |
Conspiracy?....thats for another debate.
You seem to be over looking something here Trublvr. Your writhing about offering all these things to show that the apostles, Jesus and anyone else of high ranking position didn't advocate Ant-Semitism, and their words prove it. Thats fine and dandy, scripture is in place to show this.
But there are many,many other characters in Biblical saga that are not of such lofty positions to which you concentrate to diminish the notion of Anti-Semitism.
The common dialogues, the manner in which they are set forth, give a clear representation of Anti-Semitism, quite simply most people in the NT hated Jews, no doubt about it, they wished the most severe of harm on them, and this is potrayed in the most extreme of words!....would you read the derogatory verses pertaining to Jews to young children?......you can see the dangers of doing so.
Why try to use semantics and fluff to try and hide this fact......its how the book was written, its there in plain view.....say what it is man. Is it 'meant' to convey this image of Jews?.....not in so many words no. Has this portrayed image been used as motivation for genocide?......Absolutely!!!!
I watched a movie recently that used derogatory terms and expressions continually , almost incessantly, towards a specific ethnic group. It was harsh to say the least. I don't feel that it was intended to promote these views. I see it as art twisting and imitating life. Maybe it is this realization that you should have when dealing with the Anti-Jewish dialogue and portrayed image of scripture.
| QUOTE |
| But there are many,many other characters in Biblical saga that are not of such lofty positions to which you concentrate to diminish the notion of Anti-Semitism. The common dialogues, the manner in which they are set forth, give a clear representation of Anti-Semitism, quite simply most people in the NT hated Jews, no doubt about it, they wished the most severe of harm on them, and this is potrayed in the most extreme of words!....would you read the derogatory verses pertaining to Jews to young children?......you can see the dangers of doing so. |
Please show me the scriptures that I am "over-looking", Chauncy. I'm quite intrigued. Not only that, though. Please afford me the same courtesy I extended to you: Not only did I provide a bevy of scriptures to counter what your viewpoint; I dealt significantly with all of the ones you presented. If you would be so kind, could you not only provide more scriptures to demonstrate anti-Semitism in the New Testament, but could you please deal with the some (I know I threw out many, so you don't have to mess with them all) of the ones I presented in previous posts. I'd like to see what you come up with.
| QUOTE |
| Why try to use semantics and fluff to try and hide this fact......its how the book was written, its there in plain view.....say what it is man. Is it 'meant' to convey this image of Jews?.....not in so many words no. Has this portrayed image been used as motivation for genocide?......Absolutely!!!! |
Using "semantics and fluff" to hide something?!?!?!? You proffered scriptures to back up your point (some of which you yanked completely out of context, some of which didn't even speak to the issue at hand!), and I dealt with them one by one. Then, I provided other scriptures to further demonstrate your erroneous interpretation of the New Testament on this issue. Then I provided a few extra-biblical sources from Jewish people to further my point and to cast doubt upon yours (with some advice on methodology thrown in for good measure). WHAT IN THE WORLD HAVE I BEEN TRYING TO HIDE??? I think it's clear that you are the one who keeps trying to evade the evidence I am providing.
| QUOTE |
| Please show me the scriptures that I am "over-looking", Chauncy. I'm quite intrigued |
I Thessalonians 14-15
"For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men ".
We established the Jews didn't believe your Jesus was the messiah,...non-believers.
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist, (1 John 2.22,23).
Mark quotes Jesus as saying (16:16):
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John wrote (3:36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him
In 2 Thessalonians (1:7) non-believers are described as deceivers and the antichrist:
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.."
John 8:43 addressing the non-believing Jews told them
"Ye are of your father the devil"
The New Testament accuses the Jews of killing Jesus:
..the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers (Acts 7.51-53)
[the Jews] killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us. How displeasing they are to God! How hostile they are to all men. They even tried to stop us from preaching to the Gentiles...This is the last full measure of the sins they have always committed. And now God's wrath has at last fallen upon them. Paul in (Thessalonians 2:15-16)
Not only does Christianity accuse the Jews of killing Jesus it also writes that the Jews said: (Matthew 27:25)
"His blood be on us and on our children."
This quote ensures that not only the Jews of Jesus's time but Jews throughout history would be persecuted by the Christians.
Rationalize all you like about these few verses here, as I said also there are many dialogues in the New Testament script where people speak of Jews as the lowest of low. Heathens for not believing Jesus was the messiah. I'm not going to go through and list them all here for you, anyone who can read the NT can see that Jews were hated and spit on many times over.....this is true, are you saying the people in the New Testament era didn't hate Jews?
Are you saying they didn't speak derogatory towards or about them?
Just answer the questions Trublvr.
You two crack me up .
.
I was not looking forward to trying to remember and then try to look up every verse that refers to Jews with blame or in a derogatory nature. One of my close contacts was very much abliged to e-mail me a list of some verses that may spark such anti-jewish sentiment. This interpretation as I stated before is wrong, but none-theless there is a source for this notion. Trublvr you were so emphatic about wanting more verses for you to fumble with so as per your request I will post the list as I have recieved it.
Gospel According to Mark, there are approximately 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic. They are as follows:
MR 3:6 The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus
MLR 7:6-13 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
8:15 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees
MLR 10:2-5 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
14:55-65 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
MLR 15:1-15 The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
In the Gospel According to Matthew, there are approximately 80 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
MLR 3:7c The Pharisees and Sadducees are called poisonous snakes
12:34a The Pharisees are called evil poisonous snakes
15:3-9 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
15:12-14 The Pharisees are called blind guides leading the blind
16:6 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
19:3-9 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
19:28 The disciples of Jesus will judge the twelve tribes of Israel
HMLR 22:18c The Pharisees are called hypocrites
23:13-36 The scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly vilified as hypocrites
23:38 The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken and desolate
MLR 26:59-68 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
MLR 27:1-26 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
MLR 27:62-66 The chief priests and Pharisees request a guard at Jesus' tomb
LR 28:4 The guards tremble and become like dead when the angel appears
28:11-15 The chief priest bribe the guards to lie about their actions.
In the Gospel According to Luke, there are approximately 60 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
LR 3:7c The multitudes are called poisonous snakes
MLR 4:28-30 The members of the synagogue in Nazareth try to kill Jesus
7:30 The Pharisees are said to have rejected the purposes of God
11:39-54 The Pharisees and Torah scholars are repeatedly condemned
12:1b Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy
13:14-17 The ruler of the synagogue is condemned as a hypocrite
LR 13:35a The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken
LR 22:63-71 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
LR 23:1-25 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
In the Gospel According to John, there are approximately 130 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
5:16-18 The Jews are said to have persecuted Jesus and wanted to kill him
5:37b-47 It is said that God's word and God's love is not in the Jews
7:19-24 It is said that none of the Jews do (what is written in) the Torah
7:28d It is said that the Jews do not know the One who has sent Jesus
8:13-28 It is said that the Pharisees know neither Jesus nor the Father
H 8:37-59 The Jews are said to be descendants of their father, the Devil
MLR 9:13-41 The Pharisees and other Jews are condemned as guilty
MLR 10:8 The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers
10:10a The Jews are depicted as those who steal and kill and destroy
10:31-39 The Jews are said to have picked up stones to throw at Jesus
L 11:53 It is said that the Jews realized that they would have to kill Jesus
11:57 It is said that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to seize Jesus
12:10 It is said that the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus and Jesus
12:36b-43 It is said that most Jews loved the praise of men more than of God
H 16:2-4 (The Jews who) kill Jesus' disciples will think they are serving God
HMLR 18:28-32 The Jews are said to have demanded that Pilate sentence Jesus to death
HMLR 18:38b-40 The Jews are said to be demanding that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
HMLR 19:4-16 The Jews are depicted as insisting to Pilate that Jesus be crucified.
In the Acts of the Apostles there are approximately 140 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic, included in 20 of the 28 chapters of that document:
MLR 2:23b Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
MLR 2:36b Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
MLR 3:13b-15a Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed the originator of life
MLR 4:10a Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed Jesus
MLR 5:30b Peter tells the members of the Jewish council that they killed Jesus
6:11-14 Some Jews are said to have brought false accusations against Stephen
MLR 7:51-60 Stephen shown as condemning the Jews for betraying and killing Jesus
LR 9:1-2 Paul is depicted as planning the arrest of disciples of Jesus
9:23-25 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
9:29b Jewish Hellenists are also said to have tried to kill Paul
12:1-3a It is said that the Jews were pleased when Herod killed James
12:3b-4 Herod is said to have seized Peter also to please the Jews
12:11 Peter is said to have realized that the Jews wanted to kill him
13:10-11 Paul is said to have condemned the Jew Elymas as a son of the Devil
L 13:28-29a It is said that the Jews had asked Pilate to crucify Jesus
13:39d It is said that Jews cannot be forgiven by means of the Torah
ML 13:45-46 Jews are said to have spoken against Paul
ML 13:50-51 Jews are said to have encouraged persecution of Paul and Barnabas
14:1-6 Many Jews opposing Paul and Barnabas and attempting to stone them
14:19-20 Jews are said to have stoned Paul, thinking that they had killed him
L 17:5-9 Jews are said to have incited a riot, looking for Paul and Silas
L 17:13 Jews are said to have stirred up turmoil against Paul
18:6 Paul said to have told the Jews, "Your blood will be on your own heads!"
18:12-17 Jews are said to have brought accusations against Paul
19:13-19 Jewish exorcists are shown to be condemned
21:27-36 Jews are depicted as seizing Paul and as trying to kill him
22:4-5 Paul says that when he was a Jew he had persecuted Christians
23:2-5 Paul is said to have condemned the chief priest for striking Paul
23:12-22 Jews are said to have plotted to eat nothing until they kill Paul
23:27-30 Paul is said to have been nearly killed by the Jews
24:9 The Jews are said to have accused Paul of many crimes
25:2-5 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
25:7-11 Jews are said to have continued to bring accusations against Paul
25:15-21 Jews are said to have spoken repeatedly against Paul
25:24 All Jews are said to have shouted that Paul must be killed
26:21 The Jews are said to have seized Paul and tried to kill him
28:25-28 Paul is said to have condemned the Jews for never understanding God.
Gospel According to Mark, there are approximately 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic. They are as follows:
MR 3:6 The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus
MLR 7:6-13 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
8:15 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees
MLR 10:2-5 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
14:55-65 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
MLR 15:1-15 The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
In the Gospel According to Matthew, there are approximately 80 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
MLR 3:7c The Pharisees and Sadducees are called poisonous snakes
12:34a The Pharisees are called evil poisonous snakes
15:3-9 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments
15:12-14 The Pharisees are called blind guides leading the blind
16:6 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees
19:3-9 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted
19:28 The disciples of Jesus will judge the twelve tribes of Israel
HMLR 22:18c The Pharisees are called hypocrites
23:13-36 The scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly vilified as hypocrites
23:38 The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken and desolate
MLR 26:59-68 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
MLR 27:1-26 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
MLR 27:62-66 The chief priests and Pharisees request a guard at Jesus' tomb
LR 28:4 The guards tremble and become like dead when the angel appears
28:11-15 The chief priest bribe the guards to lie about their actions.
In the Gospel According to Luke, there are approximately 60 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
LR 3:7c The multitudes are called poisonous snakes
MLR 4:28-30 The members of the synagogue in Nazareth try to kill Jesus
7:30 The Pharisees are said to have rejected the purposes of God
11:39-54 The Pharisees and Torah scholars are repeatedly condemned
12:1b Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy
13:14-17 The ruler of the synagogue is condemned as a hypocrite
LR 13:35a The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken
LR 22:63-71 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
LR 23:1-25 The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
In the Gospel According to John, there are approximately 130 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic:
5:16-18 The Jews are said to have persecuted Jesus and wanted to kill him
5:37b-47 It is said that God's word and God's love is not in the Jews
7:19-24 It is said that none of the Jews do (what is written in) the Torah
7:28d It is said that the Jews do not know the One who has sent Jesus
8:13-28 It is said that the Pharisees know neither Jesus nor the Father
H 8:37-59 The Jews are said to be descendants of their father, the Devil
MLR 9:13-41 The Pharisees and other Jews are condemned as guilty
MLR 10:8 The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers
10:10a The Jews are depicted as those who steal and kill and destroy
10:31-39 The Jews are said to have picked up stones to throw at Jesus
L 11:53 It is said that the Jews realized that they would have to kill Jesus
11:57 It is said that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to seize Jesus
12:10 It is said that the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus and Jesus
12:36b-43 It is said that most Jews loved the praise of men more than of God
H 16:2-4 (The Jews who) kill Jesus' disciples will think they are serving God
HMLR 18:28-32 The Jews are said to have demanded that Pilate sentence Jesus to death
HMLR 18:38b-40 The Jews are said to be demanding that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified
HMLR 19:4-16 The Jews are depicted as insisting to Pilate that Jesus be crucified.
In the Acts of the Apostles there are approximately 140 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish polemic, included in 20 of the 28 chapters of that document:
MLR 2:23b Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
MLR 2:36b Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus
MLR 3:13b-15a Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed the originator of life
MLR 4:10a Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed Jesus
MLR 5:30b Peter tells the members of the Jewish council that they killed Jesus
6:11-14 Some Jews are said to have brought false accusations against Stephen
MLR 7:51-60 Stephen shown as condemning the Jews for betraying and killing Jesus
LR 9:1-2 Paul is depicted as planning the arrest of disciples of Jesus
9:23-25 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
9:29b Jewish Hellenists are also said to have tried to kill Paul
12:1-3a It is said that the Jews were pleased when Herod killed James
12:3b-4 Herod is said to have seized Peter also to please the Jews
12:11 Peter is said to have realized that the Jews wanted to kill him
13:10-11 Paul is said to have condemned the Jew Elymas as a son of the Devil
L 13:28-29a It is said that the Jews had asked Pilate to crucify Jesus
13:39d It is said that Jews cannot be forgiven by means of the Torah
ML 13:45-46 Jews are said to have spoken against Paul
ML 13:50-51 Jews are said to have encouraged persecution of Paul and Barnabas
14:1-6 Many Jews opposing Paul and Barnabas and attempting to stone them
14:19-20 Jews are said to have stoned Paul, thinking that they had killed him
L 17:5-9 Jews are said to have incited a riot, looking for Paul and Silas
L 17:13 Jews are said to have stirred up turmoil against Paul
18:6 Paul said to have told the Jews, "Your blood will be on your own heads!"
18:12-17 Jews are said to have brought accusations against Paul
19:13-19 Jewish exorcists are shown to be condemned
21:27-36 Jews are depicted as seizing Paul and as trying to kill him
22:4-5 Paul says that when he was a Jew he had persecuted Christians
23:2-5 Paul is said to have condemned the chief priest for striking Paul
23:12-22 Jews are said to have plotted to eat nothing until they kill Paul
23:27-30 Paul is said to have been nearly killed by the Jews
24:9 The Jews are said to have accused Paul of many crimes
25:2-5 Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul
25:7-11 Jews are said to have continued to bring accusations against Paul
25:15-21 Jews are said to have spoken repeatedly against Paul
25:24 All Jews are said to have shouted that Paul must be killed
26:21 The Jews are said to have seized Paul and tried to kill him
28:25-28 Paul is said to have condemned the Jews for never understanding God.
Chauncy,
Instead of endeavoring to answer every scripture you've presented (most impressive!), I can deal with your polemics by just addressing the assumptions that lie beneath your arguments.
What you've done is to do what so many folks have tried (with the same appalling lack of success) to do concerning the charge that the New Testament writers and/or Jesus were anti-Semites. I've actually already dealt with most of what you've put forth, but I don't mind reiterating some things.
You clearly believe that any heated, nasty conflict that Jesus or the disciples/apostles had with Jewish people is automatically anti-Semitic. I recognize pretty much all of the biblical references you've made, and that's all your argument amounts to. It's like this: Heated, nasty, verbal slug-fest between Jesus and his people and the Jews = anti-Semitism. There are a few very big problems with this:
1) Everybody involved is Jewish!!!!!! As I said before, this is intra-cultural and intra-religious critique!!!! It is heated. It is dirty at times. However, how in the world can you say that Jesus and/or his disciples were anti-Jewish? They WERE Jewish!!!!
2) Along the same lines, the Jewish people prior to Jesus and during Jesus's times were well-acquainted with intra-cultural and intra-religious critiques of one another! Two points come to mind here, both of which I have mentioned before and you have conveniently ignored!
Instead of endeavoring to answer every scripture you've presented (most impressive!), I can deal with your polemics by just addressing the assumptions that lie beneath your arguments.
What you've done is to do what so many folks have tried (with the same appalling lack of success) to do concerning the charge that the New Testament writers and/or Jesus were anti-Semites. I've actually already dealt with most of what you've put forth, but I don't mind reiterating some things.
You clearly believe that any heated, nasty conflict that Jesus or the disciples/apostles had with Jewish people is automatically anti-Semitic. I recognize pretty much all of the biblical references you've made, and that's all your argument amounts to. It's like this: Heated, nasty, verbal slug-fest between Jesus and his people and the Jews = anti-Semitism. There are a few very big problems with this:
1) Everybody involved is Jewish!!!!!! As I said before, this is intra-cultural and intra-religious critique!!!! It is heated. It is dirty at times. However, how in the world can you say that Jesus and/or his disciples were anti-Jewish? They WERE Jewish!!!!
2) Along the same lines, the Jewish people prior to Jesus and during Jesus's times were well-acquainted with intra-cultural and intra-religious critiques of one another! Two points come to mind here, both of which I have mentioned before and you have conveniently ignored!
| QUOTE |
| Are you saying they didn't speak derogatory towards or about them? |
*sigh*
What of the Jewish, prophetic critiques of other Jews from the Old Testament ?!?!? Nothing in the New Testament even comes close to the scandalous language the prophets used of some of their own people! And this had nothing to do with race or ethnicity! Just as with Jesus and the disciples, the Old Testament prophetic critique was all about spiritual allegiance to God Almighty through how one lived one's life. Once again, have you checked out the writings of Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Isaiah? Oh, and a few more that are shorter: Amos and Habbakkuk.
What of the critiques that Jesus's Jewish contemporaries made against one another?!?!? I've already shown you that the various Jewish sects had severe problems with one another, and it got as heated and ugly as anything that occured between Jesus and the Pharisees or the apostles and the Jewish religious rulers! Were the Pharisees anti-Semites because the excluded some of their fellow Jews from civic and religious rights/privileges because of they held certain occupations that were deemed to make them ritually impure? Were the Essenes (the Qumran community) anti-Semites because the physically disabled and blemished were deemed unfit to participate in God's kingdom? Both the Pharisees and Essenes were dead wrong in subjecting people to this, but no one could rightfully call them anti-Semitic, though their exclusionary criteria was without question directed toward their fellow Jews! c) You and other like you intentionally read the anti-Semitism into the New Testament by reasoning in this way: Anti-Semites, by definition, don't like Jews. Jesus and the disciples had problems with some Jewish people at times. Therefore, Jesus and his disciples were anti-Semites! Wooonnnderful logic employed here! I'll be sure never to get in a heated theological argument with any of my Jewish friends...oops, already happened! Hey, that's weird, they didn't agree with me nor I with them, but none of them believed me to be anti-Semitic! In fact, we are all still