|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Deicidal Jews -Thank You
|
Peter Spence
Shipmate
# 14085
|
Posted
Christian prejudice against Jewish people seems to have originated in the belief that they are guilty of killing Jesus Christ. I've often wondered if anyone, either Jewish or Christian, has ever pointed out that (1) an entire people can't be held responsible for an individual's death at the time and through subsequent generations and (2) even if this were so, Christians, instead of blaming, should rather thank the Jews for being the instruments of their salvation.
Posts: 51 | From: Dublin | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
That depends. When did you stop beating your wife? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Peter Spence ... I'm sure that quite a lot of people have been pointing this out over the last 200 years. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The Council of Christians and Jews, for starters. And within my own circles - evangelical - there are plenty of folk who challenge supersessionism/replacement theology.
In the days of the early church, Gentile Christians had to be fight to be accepted as equal to their Jewish brethren (who had hundreds of years of Torah and divine revelation behind them). But the Epistle to the Galatians shows that I, for one, don't have to be Jewish in order to be grafted into the original vine.
The split between the traditional/rabbinic Jewish and the messianic Jewish communities deepened - the latter becoming ever more multi-ethnic as the Church expanded. It was a glorious thing that the gospel spread and the Church began to grow all over the known ancient world ... but a tragic thing that she began to lose touch with her Jewish roots.
Gradually the Church turned things around to the extent that if a Jewish person decided they did believe Jesus was the Messiah, they had to deny their Jewishness. Which was bonkers. Our Saviour is a Jew!
This all began to change in the 19th century. It's been a long, slow, painful process but things ARE changing ...
I agree with you, Christian anti-Semitism is pernicious and has been a terrible thread running throughout church history.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
In answer to whether anyone has pointed out, in the OP, quote:
The Second Vatican Council in Nostra Aetate said: ‘True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ’ but this is not to place any blame on the Jewish people as such, whether in that time or thereafter. Rather the contrary, because the Council went on to say: ‘still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today’.
[URL=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html ]Roman Catholic statement[/URL]
quote:
Jesus’ ministry challenged those who occupied the seats of power. He defied the religious authorities by opposing their interpretation of the laws and sacred texts, first given as a celebration of liberation and an invitation to joyful worship, but which they used to oppress and exclude. The radical distinction Jesus made between the emperor and God defied the power of the empire and threatened to undermine Roman rule. Jesus’ death was most certainly political. He was killed for resisting religious and governmental authorities and the cruel peace their collusion produced
Preaching without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism – M. Salmon (Fortress 2006) p. 139
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Regardless of the truth or falsehood of any claims about which group killed Christ, surely the fact that He prayed "Father forgive them" from the Cross itself means we shouldn't be holding grudges of our own two thousand years later.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
It always did strain credibility to imagine that a man with Pilate's human-rights record would go into public fits of agony to disassociate himself from one particular execution, that he was otherwise prepared to carry out.
And furthermore that a mob of lumpen patriots, basically the equivalent of soccer hooligans, would be thinking in such world-historical terms that they would demand that their descendants be forever credited with the execution.
[ 02. October 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And furthermore that a mob of lumpen patriots, basically the equivalent of soccer hooligans, would be thinking in such world-historical terms that they would demand that their descendants be forever credited with the execution.
Not only does it strain credulity, that isn't even what the Biblical text says. Whatever you think about the historicity of Matt 27:25, its plain meaning simply doesn't apply blood-guilt to all descendants of those specific Jews. It's "children" not "descendants." One generation is enough to impugn the Jews of Matthew's time who had kicked his community out of the synagogue, but no further.
[ 02. October 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And furthermore that a mob of lumpen patriots, basically the equivalent of soccer hooligans, would be thinking in such world-historical terms that they would demand that their descendants be forever credited with the execution.
Not only does it strain credulity, that isn't even what the Biblical text says. Whatever you think about the historicity of Matt 27:25, its plain meaning simply doesn't apply blood-guilt to all descendants of those specific Jews. It's "children" not "descendants." One generation is enough to impugn the Jews of Matthew's time who had kicked his community out of the synagogue, but no further.
Thanks for the correction. I was quoting from memory, and thought I recalled "until the end of time" in the Bible. A quick check on-line shows that that phrase has had some currency, but probably came from later commentators.
Anyway, biblical or not, the anti-Jewish interpretation of the scene is over-the-top agitprop. Even citing their literal children as co-executioners strikes me as rather odd. Unless that was some sort of common oath in those days(as for comparison, "I swear on my mother's grave")?
[ 02. October 2013, 18:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
And, of course, when the Creeds were drawn up some centuries later, the blame was pinned fairly firmly on Pontius Pilate.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
"From East to West of Christendom
Proclaim the Gospel News:
The Roman Army murdered God,
And blamed it on the Jews."
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
Christian prejudice against Jewish people seems to have originated in the belief that they are guilty of killing Jesus Christ.
I don't subscribe to that view, but I am guessing perhaps that understanding was extrapolated from here and from John's Gospel in general - on the surface he seems to have it in for "Jews."
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Everything except the obvious. The Jews, meaning the Jewish establishment, and the Roman establishment, the principalities and powers, US rampant, our representatives, in fact the first great wave of Christian converts stricken with guilt for having done it, murdered Jesus.
Putting our ... bizarre takes on them is ... bizarre.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
What is rather obvious is that a certain number of people were responsible for the process that sent Jesus to the cross, of whom some were Jews and some were Gentiles.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
And, of course, when the Creeds were drawn up some centuries later, the blame was pinned fairly firmly on Pontius Pilate.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was finalised under Theodosius I in 381 at the second ecumenical council.
Some years later (388) occurred the notorious episode in which Ambrose bitterly condemned Theodosius's prosecution of Christians who had destroyed a synagogue.
In other words, anti-Semitism was rife at the time at the highest theological level, and Roman power had become celebrated since the conversion of Constantine early in the century, so in the circumstances it is really quite surprising that the Roman governor Pilate, instead of the Jews, is blamed for Christ's death.
The compilers might have felt obliged to just continue the wording of the Old Roman (or Apostles') creed.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The record of two millenia of condemnation of all Jews as "Christ-killers" constitutes a salutary warning against attempts to blame contemporary generations for wrongs committed by their ancestors (or small numbers thereof) centuries earlier.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
And, of course, when the Creeds were drawn up some centuries later, the blame was pinned fairly firmly on Pontius Pilate.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was finalised under Theodosius I in 381 at the second ecumenical council.
Some years later (388) occurred the notorious episode in which Ambrose bitterly condemned Theodosius's prosecution of Christians who had destroyed a synagogue.
In other words, anti-Semitism was rife at the time at the highest theological level, and Roman power had become celebrated since the conversion of Constantine early in the century, so in the circumstances it is really quite surprising that the Roman governor Pilate, instead of the Jews, is blamed for Christ's death.
The compilers might have felt obliged to just continue the wording of the Old Roman (or Apostles') creed.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Some random observations--
"Under Pontius Pilate" serves to place the event in its historical context. Basically, it's a date--and it also reminds us that the crucifixion took place in real time, not in semi-mythical "Bible time". There is no need to read it as a statement of blame.
Similarly, "His blood be upon us and our children!" is the language, not of murderers, but of people who are so convinced that the execution is righteous that they are prepared to risk their own wellbeing and that of their children on the issue. In other words, they expect absolutely NO consequences, as what is happening is Good. We may disagree with that, but it's a way-too-far jump to take this statement as any kind of evidence for justified blame.
In any case, it is stupid and obnoxious to blame anybody for the death of Christ rather than ourselves. I rather expect the reason God allowed the whole Roman/Jewish circus at Jesus' trial(s) was to underline that NO ONE is guiltless, Jew or Gentile, and we had better just suck it up and admit our general human responsibility.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
That doesn't quite match with the Gospels though, especially John. Nor does it match with the words of Peter in Acts who says to the Jews concerning Christ "whom you put to death" or, if I remember correctly, "murdered" in one place. This, surely, is why we pray for this disobedient people.
[ 03. October 2013, 05:13: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems also to overlook the fact that Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Roman government did. But at the time, the Christians were trying to get along with the Roman government, so it was convenient to shift the blame.
That doesn't quite match with the Gospels though, especially John. Nor does it match with the words of Peter in Acts who says to the Jews concerning Christ "whom you put to death" or, if I remember correctly, "murdered" in one place. This, surely, is why we pray for this disobedient people.
Dude, who nailed him to the cross? Romans.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that some Jews played some part in the crucifixion of Jesus?
To issue a blanket condemnation of all Jews doesn't run the very high risk of anti-semitism. It also ignores that the first Christians were Jews. It ignores that the first people to recognise Jesus' death and resurrection as being salvific (however you understand that as actually happening) were Jews, that the first people to recognise Jesus as Messiah were Jews - indeed, the whole concept of Messiah is rooted in Jewish hopes for God's rescue of their nation. It ignores that the first people to preach the Gospel were Jews, that the Holy Spirit was first poured out upon Jews. It ignores that the first people to recognise that Jesus was Saviour not just for Jews but for Gentiles as well were Jews.
Not all the Jews, no. But in the same way, not all the Jews were complicit in the death of Jesus. To say otherwise simply seems to ignore the Biblical narrative, ISTM.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped by a country mile.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Dude, who nailed him to the cross? Romans.
Hmmm... rather dodgy answer, if you ask me.
So a judge who sentences a person to death cannot be said to be, in any way, responsible for this decision, but only the minion who administers the bullet, pulls the lever, or inserts the syringe?
Are you saying that the Sanhedrin were really quite relaxed about Jesus and His claims?
quote:
And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. ... Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. ... Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.
(From Mark 14)
So the Jewish authorities tried Jesus, condemned Him to death and then proceeded to physically torture Him. They then bound Him and led Him away to be judged by Pilate.
Now if you really think that it was only the Romans who condemned Jesus to death, then you have a very strange understanding of moral responsibility. Oh, and I forgot to mention the crowd who cried out for Jesus to be crucified. I suppose they bear no responsibility either, because none of them actually did the dirty work of swinging the hammer?
The Jews were clearly complicit in condemning Jesus, a fellow Jew. None of this justifies persecuting the Jews throughout history, of course.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Sanhedrin had no power to execute.
If one of our chums did something against the school rules, my schoolmates and I could form a mock court and condemn him to be expelled, and hand him over to the principal, but it would be the principal who (a) actually decided he should be expelled, and (b) expel him.
Who expelled him? The principal. Not us.
Pilate decided to kill Jesus. It was in his power to free him, and he did not, out of (if John is to be believed) sheer cowardice. Or perhaps laziness; it's not like the Romans couldn't have put down the populace of Jerusalem. They did it quite handily in 70 AD when it came to it.
Did the Sanhedrin condemn him? Absolutely. Did they hand him over to the Romans? Certainly. I am not absolving them of that. The question was who killed him. You might as well say that Judas killed him. Metaphorically that's all well and good. But the Romans killed him.
And again, we're talking about the Sanhedrin, a tiny number of Jews and the group that was waning in power and influence as Rabbinical Judaism began to come online. Then later a mob yelled "crucify him!" Did the mob crucify him? They didn't, and they didn't dare. And they were whipped up by a small minority; mobs are like that. To blame "The Jews" for killing Christ makes as much sense as blaming "The Blacks" for the LA Rodney King riots. It's a fallacious synecdoche* and it has cost literally millions of Jews their lives. It's time we stopped mindlessly repeating it and repent of the damage it has caused.
__________
*on a completely unrelated note, my browser's dictionary suggested "Indochinese" as a replacement for the unrecognized "synecdoche."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
mousethief -
So would the Romans have done anything to Jesus if the Jewish leadership had been apathetic towards Him, or even welcomed Him to some extent?
The answer is no.
Those who see some Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus are not responsible for perpetuating the persecution of the Jews. The Jews have been persecuted throughout history for all sorts of reasons, and a superficial reading of the gospel accounts simply provide a pretext. A pretext is not a justification. We know that Christianity cannot justify anti-Semitism, given that Jesus was Himself a Jew, and stated clearly that "Salvation is of the Jews". He also told certain Jews "You are of your father, the devil." Are we to take it therefore that Jesus was also a persecutor of the Jews, because He saw evil in some of them?
According to your reasoning you are anti-Italian and you are stirring up hatred of the descendants of the Romans. Shame on you!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
Christian prejudice against Jewish people seems to have originated in the belief that they are guilty of killing Jesus Christ. I've often wondered if anyone, either Jewish or Christian, has ever pointed out that (1) an entire people can't be held responsible for an individual's death at the time and through subsequent generations and (2) even if this were so, Christians, instead of blaming, should rather thank the Jews for being the instruments of their salvation.
I think Christian prejudice against the Jews has its roots in the fact that the Jews didn't all convert over to Team JC when confronted with the Good News. I think Luther was conciliatory to Jews until he realized that the problem they had wasn't just the Catholic Church's excesses. Mohammed liked Jews a lot less after they didn't see the wisdom of the Quran. When your holy book is based on their holy book and they don't give you their seal of approval, I think it rubbed early Christians the wrong way.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
EE - you seem to be unaware of the roots of Christian anti-Semitic theology. It goes back a very long way, to the Church Fathers - a long time before Jews started to be resented because of their business acumen or because of their status in the Diaspora.
Mousethief has it bang to rights. I urge you to listen to him.
You say, very blithely, that Christianity can't possibly be used to justify anti-Semitism, but it WAS used, deliberately and intentionally, by theological heavyweights such as Martin Luther (and bishops centuries before him) to justify anti-Semitic theology. The reasoning went that God had reserved all the blessings for His church and the only thing left for the disobedient (that word has been used in this very thread), 'Christ-killing' Jews was His curse. Once I even heard a sermon once about how the Holocaust was part of God's judgment on the Jewish people!! I was appalled and disgusted and also too shocked to challenge the speaker. Nowadays I would challenge that kind of error and prejudice. It pops up everywhere - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant circles.
Sincere Christians can be in sincere error. Luther was , on this issue (I support him on certain other issues!) and his terrible words were to have catastrophic effects - Hitler quoted Luther's invective centuries later. But Luther was far from the first.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
mousethief -
So would the Romans have done anything to Jesus if the Jewish leadership had been apathetic towards Him, or even welcomed Him to some extent?
The answer is no.
Just as in my analogy the principal wouldn't have known our schoolmate had broken the rules unless we told him. So what? That doesn't mean the Sanhedrin killed him. You aren't getting it.
1. Turned him in to the authorities
2. killed him
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.
Not sure why this is such a hard concept.
quote:
Those who see some Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus are not responsible for perpetuating the persecution of the Jews.
People in power using that power to denounce a group that does not have power do not have clean hands when someone takes action against the powerless group.
quote:
The Jews have been persecuted throughout history for all sorts of reasons, and a superficial reading of the gospel accounts simply provide a pretext. A pretext is not a justification.
This is irrelevant ut extremis. That people might be justified in killing Jews is not on anybody's radar. The issue is not justification of the murders, but provocation. Saying, "Those people I provoked to murder were not strictly speaking justified in murdering" doesn't help murder victims a bit.
quote:
According to your reasoning you are anti-Italian and you are stirring up hatred of the descendants of the Romans. Shame on you!
You clearly have no idea what my reasoning is, or indeed even what I am using that reasoning to support.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped is ahead by a county now.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That doesn't mean the Sanhedrin killed him. You aren't getting it.
1. Turned him in to the authorities
2. killed him
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.
Not sure why this is such a hard concept.
quote:
Saying, "Those people I provoked to murder were not strictly speaking justified in murdering" doesn't help murder victims a bit.
1. Provoking to murder.
2. Murdering.
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.
Not sure why this is such a hard concept.
Saying "those people I turned in to the authorities, the authorities were not strictly speaking justified in executing" doesn't help the political executees a bit.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
You're acknowledging that not actually doing the deed yourself is not necessarily sufficient to completely exonerate you from the guilt of killing. So the fact that the Sanhedrin didn't actually kill Jesus themselves isn't necessarily sufficient to completely exonerate them from guilt. If I inform the authorities that somebody is committing a crime then I am at least in part responsible for the consequences. If the crime is justly and rightly a crime then I'm doing my civic duty. If the crime is unjustly and wrongly a crime then I'm at best collaborating with an unjust law. If I live in a country where abortion is illegal, and I discover that my neighbour is a backstreet abortionist, I do not get to claim that it is the authorities who are punishing her and her clients rather than me should I pass this fact on to the authorities as a point of general interest.
Should be obvious disclaimer: any moral culpability of the Sanhedrin of AD 30 stops with them and is not transferable to anybody not directly involved.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You're acknowledging that not actually doing the deed yourself is not necessarily sufficient to completely exonerate you from the guilt of killing. So the fact that the Sanhedrin didn't actually kill Jesus themselves isn't necessarily sufficient to completely exonerate them from guilt.
At no point have I said that they were free from guilt. You have successfully knocked a straw knight from his horse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin
EE - you seem to be unaware of the roots of Christian anti-Semitic theology. It goes back a very long way, to the Church Fathers - a long time before Jews started to be resented because of their business acumen or because of their status in the Diaspora.
Mousethief has it bang to rights. I urge you to listen to him.
You say, very blithely, that Christianity can't possibly be used to justify anti-Semitism, but it WAS used, deliberately and intentionally, by theological heavyweights such as Martin Luther (and bishops centuries before him) to justify anti-Semitic theology. The reasoning went that God had reserved all the blessings for His church and the only thing left for the disobedient (that word has been used in this very thread), 'Christ-killing' Jews was His curse. Once I even heard a sermon once about how the Holocaust was part of God's judgment on the Jewish people!! I was appalled and disgusted and also too shocked to challenge the speaker. Nowadays I would challenge that kind of error and prejudice. It pops up everywhere - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant circles.
Sincere Christians can be in sincere error. Luther was , on this issue (I support him on certain other issues!) and his terrible words were to have catastrophic effects - Hitler quoted Luther's invective centuries later. But Luther was far from the first.
OK, so we should just rewrite history, because some people have abused history for their own nefarious ends? Is that what you are suggesting we do?
And we should ignore those passages of the New Testament that talk about the Gentiles being grafted into the Jewish tree, that "Salvation is of the Jews" and that Jesus WAS HIMSELF A JEW.
However much Christianity has been abused by evil people through the centuries, it is a fact that the religion founded by A JEW - who said that "Salvation is of the Jews" - cannot be inherently anti-Semitic.
Can you grasp the distinction between 'pretext' and 'justification'?
[ 03. October 2013, 19:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so we should just rewrite history, because some people have abused history for their own nefarious ends? Is that what you are suggesting we do?
I can't speak for Laurelin, but I would say that we should stop perpetuating the mistakes of history. Far from asking you to rewrite history, she called on you to open your eyes to vast swathes of history you are sweeping under the rug.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The religion Christianity has been the most anti-Semitic force bar none.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Far from asking you to rewrite history, she called on you to open your eyes to vast swathes of history you are sweeping under the rug.
Please show me one comment that I have made, which indicates that I am sweeping "vast swathes of history under the rug".
Where have I denied that professing Christians have persecuted Jews throughout history?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not....
The religion Christianity has been the most anti-Semitic force bar none.
Please show me the biblical teaching that deliberately encourages Christians to persecute Jews.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Far from asking you to rewrite history, she called on you to open your eyes to vast swathes of history you are sweeping under the rug.
Please show me one comment that I have made, which indicates that I am sweeping "vast swathes of history under the rug".
Where have I denied that professing Christians have persecuted Jews throughout history?
Where have you admitted it? Mostly you are ignoring it and pressing your own attack on a straw man of your own devising. To wit, that any of us are claiming that the Bible justifies attacking Jews. None of us are. Put down the matches and back away from the straw man slowly.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not....
The religion Christianity has been the most anti-Semitic force bar none.
Please show me the biblical teaching that deliberately encourages Christians to persecute Jews.
He hasn't claimed anything of the sort. Address what he said, not what you would like to think he said.
[ 03. October 2013, 20:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
mousethief -
So would the Romans have done anything to Jesus if the Jewish leadership had been apathetic towards Him, or even welcomed Him to some extent?
The answer is no.
If there'd been apathy, your "no" is probably on target.
A welcome JC, though? By the Jewish authority? Let's bear in mind that the Romans were an occupying military force busy skimming the riches off this colony. The locals were not all happy little campers under this arrangement; they were poor and oppressed.
The Gospels are full of indications that at least some of the locals saw JC as a potential political or even military leader, come to help them throw off Roman rule in the contemporary here-and-now.
How likely is it that the Romans would have sat back and countenanced the Jewish authority's embrace of a movement which might have led to unrest, revolt, or open conflict?
I don't buy it.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Please show me the history of Christians embracing, including, serving, laying down their lives for, accepting, tolerating, submitting to others.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
mousethief -
So would the Romans have done anything to Jesus if the Jewish leadership had been apathetic towards Him, or even welcomed Him to some extent?
The answer is no.
If there'd been apathy, your "no" is probably on target.
A welcome JC, though? By the Jewish authority? Let's bear in mind that the Romans were an occupying military force busy skimming the riches off this colony. The locals were not all happy little campers under this arrangement; they were poor and oppressed.
The Gospels are full of indications that at least some of the locals saw JC as a potential political or even military leader, come to help them throw off Roman rule in the contemporary here-and-now.
How likely is it that the Romans would have sat back and countenanced the Jewish authority's embrace of a movement which might have led to unrest, revolt, or open conflict?
I don't buy it.
If you want a parallel case, check out the death of Rabbi Akiva--accepted by the Jews (to this day), a supporter of the Bar Kochba revolt (according to the story) and tortured to death by the Romans. 'Acceptance by the Jews' has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If there'd been apathy, your "no" is probably on target.
A welcome JC, though? By the Jewish authority? Let's bear in mind that the Romans were an occupying military force busy skimming the riches off this colony. The locals were not all happy little campers under this arrangement; they were poor and oppressed.
The Gospels are full of indications that at least some of the locals saw JC as a potential political or even military leader, come to help them throw off Roman rule in the contemporary here-and-now.
How likely is it that the Romans would have sat back and countenanced the Jewish authority's embrace of a movement which might have led to unrest, revolt, or open conflict?
I don't buy it.
I'm not sure about this. There's plenty of evidence from the Gospels at least that the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem were hostile to Jesus - and it was them who brought him to Pilate on a charge of seeking to stir up a revolution.
N T Wright has a thesis that actually the ruling elites (the Sadducees etc. - not the Pharisees) in Jerusalem were quite happy with the status quo even under Roman occupation. After all, the Romans had appointed them as leaders and put them in a position of power - if Rome was driven from Jerusalem then they'd find themselves turfed out of power.
Which, to me, makes sense if only because that's what elites of any nationality and of any age tend to do - protect their own position. If so, then far from seeing Jesus as a welcome liberator, they might well have seen him as a dangerous threat bringing in a wholly unwelcome revolution that, if carried out, would've threatened catastrophe for them and the nation. So, if all that's true, then surely it's quite likely they'd have wanted to deal with Jesus and would've been quite content to work with the Romans to do so who, as you say, wouldn't have tolerated any hint of trouble. The shock would've come when Pilate started umming and ahhing.
As I said above, though, if even if this was the case it was some Jews playing some part in the death of Jesus - a far, far cry from "The Jews killed Jesus - they should be condemned!"
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so we should just rewrite history, because some people have abused history for their own nefarious ends? Is that what you are suggesting we do?
As Mousethief has already pointed out, nobody in this thread has suggested this.
quote:
And we should ignore those passages of the New Testament that talk about the Gentiles being grafted into the Jewish tree, that "Salvation is of the Jews" and that Jesus WAS HIMSELF A JEW.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Let's run this again. In my very first post in this thread, I said that a) I am grafted as a Gentile into the vine of Israel (something I am very grateful for) and b) that Jesus Himself WAS A JEW.
And I am aware that acknowledging the culpability in Scripture of the Judean religious elite towards Jesus is not akin to blaming the entire Jewish race wholesale. Pilate and the Roman authorities were every bit as culpable, IMO. And as Lamb Chopped rightly said, there is the theological aspect of general human responsibility for the death of Christ - not singling the Jews out.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Please show me the history of Christians embracing, including, serving, laying down their lives for, accepting, tolerating, submitting to others.
They're there if you want to look for them, Martin. Most saints are unsung. Unlike the big shots.
But I take your point (which escaped EE) about historic Christianity often behaving like ... well, not the thing it is meant to be. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If there'd been apathy, your "no" is probably on target.
A welcome JC, though? By the Jewish authority? Let's bear in mind that the Romans were an occupying military force busy skimming the riches off this colony. The locals were not all happy little campers under this arrangement; they were poor and oppressed.
The Gospels are full of indications that at least some of the locals saw JC as a potential political or even military leader, come to help them throw off Roman rule in the contemporary here-and-now.
How likely is it that the Romans would have sat back and countenanced the Jewish authority's embrace of a movement which might have led to unrest, revolt, or open conflict?
I don't buy it.
I'm not sure about this. There's plenty of evidence from the Gospels at least that the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem were hostile to Jesus - and it was them who brought him to Pilate on a charge of seeking to stir up a revolution.
N T Wright has a thesis that actually the ruling elites (the Sadducees etc. - not the Pharisees) in Jerusalem were quite happy with the status quo even under Roman occupation. After all, the Romans had appointed them as leaders and put them in a position of power - if Rome was driven from Jerusalem then they'd find themselves turfed out of power.
Which, to me, makes sense if only because that's what elites of any nationality and of any age tend to do - protect their own position. If so, then far from seeing Jesus as a welcome liberator, they might well have seen him as a dangerous threat bringing in a wholly unwelcome revolution that, if carried out, would've threatened catastrophe for them and the nation. So, if all that's true, then surely it's quite likely they'd have wanted to deal with Jesus and would've been quite content to work with the Romans to do so who, as you say, wouldn't have tolerated any hint of trouble. The shock would've come when Pilate started umming and ahhing.
As I said above, though, if even if this was the case it was some Jews playing some part in the death of Jesus - a far, far cry from "The Jews killed Jesus - they should be condemned!"
Sorry; I did not make myself clear. I understand that the Jewish authority was hostile to Jesus. The Jewish authority were also pretty hostile toward their own common ordinary people – exactly for the reasons you state: the Jewish authority was given a modicum of power by the Romans; they were Rome’s puppet-rulers. In return, they were supposed to keep the rabble from revolting while the Romans made economic life difficult for the people. It was among the ordinary people there were hopes that Jesus might lead an uprising against the Romans, something both the Jewish authority in cooperation with the Romans, would ruthlessly put down. That joint effort, as you point out, would be an effort by the Jewish authority to protect their own privileged position. I was responding to EE’s suggestion that the Romans would have left Jesus alone if the Jewish authority had welcomed him. They couldn’t have done so, as you point out; he posed a threat to them, even if that threat actually consisted of a misunderstanding by ordinary people of Jesus as a potential political/military revolutionary (as opposed to spiritual) leader.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sorry; I did not make myself clear. I understand that the Jewish authority was hostile to Jesus. The Jewish authority were also pretty hostile toward their own common ordinary people – exactly for the reasons you state: the Jewish authority was given a modicum of power by the Romans; they were Rome’s puppet-rulers. In return, they were supposed to keep the rabble from revolting while the Romans made economic life difficult for the people. It was among the ordinary people there were hopes that Jesus might lead an uprising against the Romans, something both the Jewish authority in cooperation with the Romans, would ruthlessly put down. That joint effort, as you point out, would be an effort by the Jewish authority to protect their own privileged position. I was responding to EE’s suggestion that the Romans would have left Jesus alone if the Jewish authority had welcomed him. They couldn’t have done so, as you point out; he posed a threat to them, even if that threat actually consisted of a misunderstanding by ordinary people of Jesus as a potential political/military revolutionary (as opposed to spiritual) leader.
Oops, sorry for the misunderstanding - that makes sense to me.
Palm Sunday must've been a huge warning bell not only to the Jewish authorities but to the Roman ones as well (though it does make me wonder why Pilate is portrayed as being so reluctant to crucify Jesus; as has been pointed out, he was hardly a fan of human rights and if there was the slightest hint of trouble, you'd have thought he'd been keen to get rid of it, if only to save his own skin).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Where have you admitted it? Mostly you are ignoring it and pressing your own attack on a straw man of your own devising. To wit, that any of us are claiming that the Bible justifies attacking Jews. None of us are. Put down the matches and back away from the straw man slowly.
mousethief - of all people! - accusing someone else of attacking a straw man. Sheesh.
I certainly acknowledge that many people who have called themselves 'Christians' have persecuted the Jews throughout history, but since this is completely irrelevant to the question of the events of the life of Jesus, then why should I feel under any obligation to mention it? You are talking about a series of future events - from the standpoint of the life and death of Jesus - being appealed to, in order to interpret that life and death. It's a bit like saying that the current political events in the USA can only be properly understood in the light of what will happen in that country from the years 2020 to 2199. How pathetically stupid, don't you think? (And it's ironic that liberals constantly tell us to understand historical events in their context, and not with hindsight!)
History is history. Are you advocating revisionism in order to counteract the actions of those who have abused historical events as a pretext to commit serious crimes? This kind of revisionism is, in essence, no different from the kind of revisionism commonly called "Holocaust denial". Just as we should not tamper with the history of the Second World War to justify anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism, so we shouldn't tamper with the history of the first century in an attempt to counteract anti-Semitism. It's totally irresponsible and morally wrong.
Hey, why don't we muck around with the history of the Great Schism or the Reformation to encourage ecumenism? How about it? Let's just all pretend these events didn't really happen!
quote:
Address what he said
This is what he said...
quote:
The religion Christianity has been the most anti-Semitic force bar none.
I certainly was responding to this by stating that Christianity is not anti-Semitic.
The fact that some people who have called themselves 'Christians' have been anti-Semitic is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity itself is anti-Semitic. All that the actions of these 'Christians' prove is that they were not being faithful to the teachings of their own religion.
But if you think that the teachings of a religion are irrelevant to the definition of a religion, and you imagine that appealing to those teachings to defend that religion is equivalent to attacking a straw man when that religion is accused of some evil, then I think it's pointless trying to reason with you, quite frankly.
What I suspect you are trying to do is to make Christians wallow in guilt for the anti-Semitic crimes of their nominal co-religionists. I am not falling for it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The fact that some people who have called themselves 'Christians' have been anti-Semitic is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity itself is anti-Semitic. All that the actions of these 'Christians' prove is that they were not being faithful to the teachings of their own religion.
Ordinarily, I'd agree that "a religion," in the form of an organized (well, OK, maybe not so organized) system of moral/spiritual/whatever precepts-&-practices can only be anti-Semitic, or anti-anything, to the extent that it includes precepts/practices which teach (& practice) exactly that. A religion which teaches that, say, picnic hampers are evil, and unambiguously instructs its followers to destroy picnic hampers wherever they encounter such items, is clearly anti-picnic hamper.
The problem is that, without followers to implement them, a body of precepts/practices is basically nothing at all. Absent people who label themselves Christians, there is no Christianity.
Beyond that, there's plenty of built-in ambiguity in the particular set of precepts and practices which comprise "Christianity," and these have been used by "Christians" from the get-go to emphasize some precepts/practices and de-emphasize or ignore others, producing different subsets of the religion. Each subset tends to portray itself as the "true" version. This would no doubt include the more anti-Semitic subsets.
So I think this argument gets us nowhere.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
mousethief - of all people! - accusing someone else of attacking a straw man. Sheesh.
Mousethief -- of all people! -- noting that someone has committed a personal attack outside of Hell. Sheesh.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I certainly acknowledge that many people who have called themselves 'Christians' have persecuted the Jews throughout history, but since this is completely irrelevant to the question of the events of the life of Jesus, then why should I feel under any obligation to mention it?
Because it is what this particular conversation is about.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I suspect you are trying to do is to make Christians wallow in guilt for the anti-Semitic crimes of their nominal co-religionists. I am not falling for it.
The image of Pontius Pilate washing his hands comes immediately to mind.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Indeed. I really can handle the hosting though.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sorry. Touchy, I guess.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
