Ship of Fools: Deicidal Jews -Thank You

Thread: Deicidal Jews -Thank You Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026103

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

That depends. When did you stop beating your wife? [Biased]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Peter Spence ... I'm sure that quite a lot of people have been pointing this out over the last 200 years. [Smile]

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. [Smile]

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Given that the gospels were written as the Roman Empire began to persecute, it isn't surprising that the evangelists tried to shift the blame from the Romans on to the Jews.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

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 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

"From East to West of Christendom
Proclaim the Gospel News:
The Roman Army murdered God,
And blamed it on the Jews."

Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :

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."

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

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.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

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.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Lamb Chopped by a country mile.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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!

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

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.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Lamb Chopped is ahead by a county now.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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]

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The religion Christianity has been the most anti-Semitic force bar none.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Please show me the history of Christians embracing, including, serving, laying down their lives for, accepting, tolerating, submitting to others.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

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!"

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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.

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]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

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).

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief
[b]mousethief - of all people! - accusing someone else of attacking a straw man. Sheesh.

Indeed. I really can handle the hosting though.

Personal comments on other posters belong in Hell, not here, as you know.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

[ 04. October 2013, 18:50: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Indeed. I really can handle the hosting though.

Sorry. Touchy, I guess.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Do you have your fingers crossed during the Good Friday liturgy?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Do you have your fingers crossed during the Good Friday liturgy?

AO:

Just out of curiousity, what church do you belong to where they still pray for the conversion of the Jews with reference to their alleged role in the killing of Christ?

I was raised Catholic, and as far as I can remember, having attended Good Friday services for over twenty years, they never talked about the Jews killing Christ. I don't recall that we even prayed for converting Jews in particular, but if we did, I'm pretty sure their supposed deicide was not part of the supplication.

My understanding is that at one time, the Catholic Good Friday service DID contain such references, but that was dropped some time post-V2.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Orthodox. I used to be an RC though but I only attended the old rite towards the end (I refused to attend the new rite) which had the proper prayers (among the oldest in the Roman Rite).

Orthodox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_prayer_for_the_Jews#Eastern_Churches

Roman Rite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_prayer_for_the_Jews#Traditional_version_of_prayer

[ 05. October 2013, 07:01: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

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.

As Protestants, we need to address, for example, what Martin Luther wrote here.

[Warning; the link is to an antisemitic document]

I think Martin Luther was a Christian (not a 'Christian') whose attitudes to Jews as conveyed in this book stink to high heaven. And he was a key figure, a profound influence, in the Reformation.

Saying that he misrepresented Christianity™ may in some purist sense be true but it does not get to the root issue which is that there are sayings in the Bible and in Tradition which have been prayed in aid of antisemitism. Great evils have been perpetrated on the back of them. We need to acknowedge these things, acknowledge their baleful power and the evils which was flowed from them, repent of them, turn our backs on them, and do different.

This is the essential message (I believe) which mousethief and others are trying to get across.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The way toward mental health is not to distance oneself from ones intrusive thoughts, ones guilt, ones shame but to embrace them with the narrative of inclusive love. Not to pretend, repress, deny.

Christianity is an abomination of abominations of which I and everyone here, no exception, am an abominable part and product. Name one evil of our 2000 year culture that we haven't perpetrated in spades. We haven't just been a bit anti-Semitic, a tad Islamophobic, a little imperialistic, a smidgeon usurious, un peu warmongering ... capitalist ... judgmental ... oppressive ... coercive ... unjust ... ignorant ... fearful ... faithless ... vile ... ashamed ... naked ... unkind, ungenerous, murderous ... have YOU? Have we.

I love my mother. I love myself. I love you EE, abomination in projecting denial that you are. Your virtually every utterance on SOF oozes that. Friend, brother in the mirror.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

On the issue of whether Christianity is “really” what its foundation documents teach, or what Christians have actually done, I envisage a situation in which a fellow-Christian tells us that Buddhism is “really” a superstitious and idolatrous religion (on the basis of the practices of folk Buddhism) or that it is “really” a violent religion (on the basis of horrors perpetrated by Buddhists in places such as Tibet, Sri Lanka and Burma).

I would expect – I would certainly hope – that we would hasten to point out that the Buddha did not teach superstition or violence; that he cannot be held responsible for the later perversions of his teachings; and that the validity of Buddhism can only be fairly and honestly assessed on the basis of what he actually said and wrote (insofar as that can be determined).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Do you have your fingers crossed during the Good Friday liturgy?
AO:

Just out of curiousity, what church do you belong to where they still pray for the conversion of the Jews with reference to their alleged role in the killing of Christ?

I was raised Catholic, and as far as I can remember, having attended Good Friday services for over twenty years, they never talked about the Jews killing Christ. I don't recall that we even prayed for converting Jews in particular, but if we did, I'm pretty sure their supposed deicide was not part of the supplication.

My understanding is that at one time, the Catholic Good Friday service DID contain such references, but that was dropped some time post-V2.

The Jews are always prayed for in the Solemn prayers - between the passion and the veneration of the cross but the prayer is more bland than hitherto, asking that they may be 'brought into the one fold' - means Christianity but doesn't spell it out.

However, the old prayer has crept in again under the 'Extraordinary Form'. Even here, it's a wording modified in the 1960s rather than referring to 'the perfidious Jews.'

[ 05. October 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief

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.

So someone is accused of something of which he is not guilty, and when he objects to this injustice, he is told that he is like Pontius Pilate washing his hands.

Very strange logic and morality.

Funnily enough, I learnt that it was wrong to accuse someone falsely before I went to primary (elementary) school. I guess then that I ought to unlearn this very unhelpful moral principle!!

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Saying that he misrepresented Christianity™ may in some purist sense be true but it does not get to the root issue which is that there are sayings in the Bible and in Tradition which have been prayed in aid of antisemitism. Great evils have been perpetrated on the back of them. We need to acknowedge these things, acknowledge their baleful power and the evils which was flowed from them, repent of them, turn our backs on them, and do different.

Indeed I do acknowledge these things, and many many times I have pointed out the evils of Christian history. But I certainly do not feel in the slightest bit inclined to repent of something of which I personally am not guilty, and the guilt manipulators of this world - of which there are sadly very many in the Christian Church - can spew out their venom as much as they like.

But let's say that you argue that I - and other Christians who do not persecute Jews - should engage in some kind of corporate repentance on behalf of the Christian Church. OK fine. I can see the logic of corporate repentance. So we repent. We acknowledge the evils of anti-Semitism. We urge the Church to reject it. We pray for the Jews. We pray for the peace of Jerusalem, as the Scripture tells us.

Happy now?

Oh, but no you're probably not, are you? Because, from the whole tenor of this thread, it is not about repentance. It is about the cynical act of historical revisionism. The Church is supposed to change history and reject the biblical accounts of the passion of Jesus Christ, before the likes of mousethief et al are satisfied. Revisionism is not repentance.

All people have sinned. Jew and Gentile. There is no race that is morally pure and morally superior to any other. This message is screamed loud and clear through the Jewish Scriptures, never mind the New Testament. Therefore the idea that the only way we can be motivated to refrain from persecuting a certain race is to believe that they can do no wrong, is utterly absurd. It's a nonsense argument. Whether the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus or not, makes not a fig of difference to our moral responsibility to love our Jewish neighbour. It only matters to those who use the guilt of certain Jews as a pretext to persecute all Jews. A pretext is a corrupt and fallacious justification for something. If they didn't have that idea as a pretext then they would find another one. Don't blame history. Blame the corrupt and cynical abusers of history. Preach your message to them!

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not...
I love you EE, abomination in projecting denial that you are. Your virtually every utterance on SOF oozes that.

Actually I rather think that I am the one who is facing reality, and rightly assessing the attitudes of those who persecute Jews. Those who want to rewrite history, and who accuse others falsely, are actually the ones projecting denial.

[ 05. October 2013, 14:51: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

You just don't get it do you mate?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Saying that he misrepresented Christianity™ may in some purist sense be true but it does not get to the root issue which is that there are sayings in the Bible and in Tradition which have been prayed in aid of antisemitism. Great evils have been perpetrated on the back of them. We need to acknowedge these things, acknowledge their baleful power and the evils which was flowed from them, repent of them, turn our backs on them, and do different.
Indeed I do acknowledge these things, and many many times I have pointed out the evils of Christian history. But I certainly do not feel in the slightest bit inclined to repent of something of which I personally am not guilty, and the guilt manipulators of this world - of which there are sadly very many in the Christian Church - can spew out their venom as much as they like.

But let's say that you argue that I - and other Christians who do not persecute Jews - should engage in some kind of corporate repentance on behalf of the Christian Church. OK fine. I can see the logic of corporate repentance. So we repent. We acknowledge the evils of anti-Semitism. We urge the Church to reject it. We pray for the Jews. We pray for the peace of Jerusalem, as the Scripture tells us.

Happy now?

Oh, but no you're probably not, are you? Because, from the whole tenor of this thread, it is not about repentance. It is about the cynical act of historical revisionism.

I really don't see how you got that impression from anything I wrote here, or have ever written on SoF.

I'm actually arguing against historical revisionism - particularly in its application to Christianity™ as we might wish it always to have been. It is much more important to learn from history than to sanitise it to suit some agenda or other. The faith to which we belong jointly has a spotty history, both in terms of behaviour and belief.

The real historical revisionism is belief in some kind of early "golden age" of Christendom which was somehow spoiled by the journey towards order, control, etc. There is no evidence that there ever was such an age. "Back to earlier simplicities" is a romantic notion, really. The historical church was just as representative of our imperfections as people as any part of today's church.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm actually arguing against historical revisionism

Same here. And ditto for everything else in your excellent post.

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

Thanks very much to contributors who have more than adequately addressed point 1, but point 2 anyone? -if somehow the entire Jewish people were/are responsible for the events of Calvary why was/is this an occasion for Christian blame rather gratitude?

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

I should have used the preview thing. The last bit should be 'rather than gratitude'.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I guess the moral argument is about unintended consequences. Those who wished Jesus dead, those who conspired against him to achieve that end, had no benevolent intentions (towards anyone other than what they saw as some kind of 'greater good', but which 'greater good' had absolutely zero to say to people outside their own communities). At worst their intentions were malevolent, at best pragmatic.

So when, as Christians see it, a cosmic 'turning of the tables' took place, that's hardly a reason for gratitude towards the malevolent or pragmatic, is it? Those involved in the guilty acts would be hardly likely to expect it and it would be duplicitous of them to argue that it was some kind of due reward.

[ 07. October 2013, 10:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

If a burglar relieved a household of Aunt Agatha's hideous jug which had to be displayed prominently at all times in case the (very wealthy) old dear pops in unannounced I think despite said burglar's negative intentions the household would have the perfect excuse for not having the jug any more and as such would be very grateful to him or her.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

I have never seen a thread like this on the Ship before. Almost everyone is actually broadly in agreement and are just finding new ways to string the discussion out!

My view is virtually all that has been said. Some Jewish Leaders thinking that it would be good to get rid of Jesus ('one man for the people must die') before he fermented an uprising which would be crushed by Rome (and as a by-product would come back home to them for not keeping their patch in order) decided to use the system that existed under Roman rule to get Jesus' executed, because only the Romans could legally execute people - although no doubt illicit stoning existed - Rome would most likely see it as a matter for the Jews, but what if not? Would Rome see this as an atempt to create an alternative system of law?. If Rome took a dim view of that there would have been repercussions which might have decayed their authority still further. No the best option was to play collaborator but make it look like it was by popular demand. Get a rent-a-crowd and demand Roman 'justice'.

So a clever plan by the Sanhedrin. But any Jewish responsibility stops there. Pilate questioned Jesus and found him innocent so Roman resposibility starts there.

In short both the Sanhedrin (alone) and Pilate (alone) share historical responsibility by making a choice to condemn the innocent. The crowd may genuinely have believed the Sanhedrin's line and the Roman soldiers just did their jobs.

The only way you can get a whole people group blamed for this is for Political reasons - which as other posters have said - was a way of dealing with those awkward Jewish communities which just wouldnt conform.

In the defence of those too - in an illiterate age not many would have read the Gospels , still fewer would have read Paul's teaching on the Election, Apostacy and Restoration of Israel (which is why Luther had no excuse - he was a Romans expert!).

You did what you were told by the Church and if they said it was the Jews - it was the Jews, guv...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So when, as Christians see it, a cosmic 'turning of the tables' took place, that's hardly a reason for gratitude towards the malevolent or pragmatic, is it? Those involved in the guilty acts would be hardly likely to expect it and it would be duplicitous of them to argue that it was some kind of due reward.

But there is no excuse to take the blame due to the malevolent or pragmatic few (a couple hundred, tops) and ascribe it to the entire religion (or race depending on how you define "Jews"). THAT is the issue, as I see it, not whether we can blame the Sanhedrin (obviously). But we, the Christians, have kept using the Sanhedrin, and the actions of a few hundred people in a mob, to justify the most hideous of crimes against our fellow humans. And saying, "Well that wasn't Christianity, it was just people claiming to be Christians, so I'm not going to do anything, including discontinue the same line of reasoning," doesn't help jack shit.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
And saying, "Well that wasn't Christianity, it was just people claiming to be Christians, so I'm not going to do anything, including discontinue the same line of reasoning," doesn't help jack shit.

So what are you asking these people to do exactly? Your complaint that they say: "I'm not going to do anything" indicates that there is something they ought to do.

Which is what??

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
And saying, "Well that wasn't Christianity, it was just people claiming to be Christians, so I'm not going to do anything, including discontinue the same line of reasoning," doesn't help jack shit.
So what are you asking these people to do exactly? Your complaint that they say: "I'm not going to do anything" indicates that there is something they ought to do.
Which is what??

I think he is referring to your characterisation that anti-Semitic sentiments came from 'Christians' rather than Christians. It seems the least you can do is stop putting quotes in where they aren't warranted.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

There is something they ought not to do, which is try to whitewash Christianity by placing nasty "Christians" in scare quotes. Otherwise known as the No True Christian fallacy.

[X-posted with chris stiles. Great minds and all that.]

[ 07. October 2013, 13:26: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

OK. Fair point. These people are Christian in the same sense that the Yorkshire Ripper is British, as I am. It means nothing more than cultural identity. I acknowledge that the word can be used in this way.

I am not at all committed to that kind of Christianity, and that is why I put it in inverted commas. One thing I am clear about, however, is that the kind of Christianity that is faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament is not anti-Semitic, and cannot be.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK. Fair point. These people are Christian in the same sense that the Yorkshire Ripper is British, as I am. It means nothing more than cultural identity. I acknowledge that the word can be used in this way.

I think you are still missing the point. As someone said earlier in the thread, Luther was at times pretty anti-Semitic, but was a Christian rather than a 'Christian'.

The problem is that Christians (not 'Christians') fail to live out Christianity in a perfectly faithful manner. At times, that has included anti-Semitism.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
I think you are still missing the point. As someone said earlier in the thread, Luther was at times pretty anti-Semitic, but was a Christian rather than a 'Christian'.

All that that is saying is that Christians (rather than 'Christians') sin.

But sin does not define Christianity, any more than slave owning defines what it means to be American. All those slave owners in the USA were Americans, not 'Americans'. Does that mean that all the Americans on the Ship should feel personal responsibility for slavery, and acknowledge that slavery is somehow part and parcel of what it means to be American?

Given that our Saviour is Jewish, I cannot imagine how Christianity, however it's defined, can be anti-Semitic. I suppose someone could try and argue that Jesus was a traitor, but then that would be defining the term Jewish in religious rather than racial terms. Anti-Semitism, however, is prejudice against Jews as a race, not simply as a religion. How can we, as Christians, worship a Jewish Saviour, and hate the Jews as a race? Only by being grotesquely inconsistent with the basis of our faith, thereby qualifying as 'Christians' rather than Christians.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK. Fair point. These people are Christian in the same sense that the Yorkshire Ripper is British, as I am. It means nothing more than cultural identity. I acknowledge that the word can be used in this way.

I am not at all committed to that kind of Christianity, and that is why I put it in inverted commas. One thing I am clear about, however, is that the kind of Christianity that is faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament is not anti-Semitic, and cannot be.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. What makes you think these people are any less Christians than you or I? Because your sins are tiny compared to theirs? That's not a Christian attitude. When I look at my own sins, they are not faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament (or they wouldn't be sins). That doesn't make me not-a-Christian, unless you will claim that once they are "saved" Christians can no longer sin. That heresy was dealt with centuries ago.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But sin does not define Christianity,

Nobody but you has suggested such a thing. This is a straw man. Cut it out.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Judge not, lest ye be judged. What makes you think these people are any less Christians than you or I? Because your sins are tiny compared to theirs? That's not a Christian attitude.

I am still struggling to understand what you are trying to say on this thread. OK, so there are genuine Christians who have persecuted Jews. I am a Christian who believes that it is not right to persecute Jews. I am not saying that I am perfect, but that is my view.

Now, again, what exactly are you asking me to do?

I have affirmed that there are Christians rather than 'Christians' who have persecuted Jews.

I have affirmed that Christianity per se does not teach the persecution of Jews, but the precise opposite.

Why some genuine Christians have decided to persecute Jews is a matter between them and God, and I personally think that they have been wrong to do so. It is not a matter of being self-righteous, but merely calling evil by its proper name.

You have compared me to Pontius Pilate washing his hands - and yet you preach to me about not judging (!) - so you obviously seem to be accusing me of something. I'm afraid it is not clear to me at all what the hell you are going on about on this thread, because I cannot see how I am disagreeing with the historical reality that some Christians have persecuted some Jews.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But sin does not define Christianity,
Nobody but you has suggested such a thing. This is a straw man. Cut it out.

Excellent! I am very glad in fact that you have affirmed that I have committed the straw man fallacy here, because it means that the Christian religion cannot be held responsible for Christians who sin. Thank you for that. Therefore anti-Semitism - which is a sin - has nothing to do with Christianity, but merely with some Christians who fail to live as Christians.

I am so glad we've cleared that one up!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I give up. Anybody else want to give it a try?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Give up on what???

What a pathetic mind fuck.

Could someone who is actually capable of knocking together a rational argument please step up to the plate?

Thanks.

[ 07. October 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is that what Jesus would say EE? Is that what a non-nominal Christian would say? Or a nominal one? A representative one? An historically typical one? A normal one? A vituperative, whinging, self-justifying, alienated, fearful, angry, murderous, lost, despiteful, ugly, unlovable one?

Welcome mate.

Trying to love you, with my nose wrinkled in self disgust reflecting yours.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But sin does not define Christianity, any more than slave owning defines what it means to be American.

It may not define Christianity in the abstract, it may do in the concrete.

Let's take the slavery example - slave owning doesn't define what it means to be an American, but slavery does cast a pretty big shadow over American history and has all sorts of impacts on American identity to this day.

To extend that to Christianity, to this day that people like Dabney and Thornwell made pro-slavery arguments, casst a shadow over the history of the Southern Reformed churches and has all sorts of impacts on Southern Presbyterian and Reformed identity.

I would have to say that it seems to me that you understand this line of argument, which is why your original referred to 'Christians'

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm just so glad that there were no Christians here.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All that that is saying is that Christians (rather than 'Christians') sin.

Interesting theological position. Christians sin, but 'Christians' apparently don't. They must be the "he who is without sin" Jesus was allegedly talking about.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Croesos -

Absolutely correct. 'Christians' do not sin, because 'Christians' do not exist. We have already established that on this thread, have we not?

As for Christians... well, they do all sorts of things, much of which I disagree with. That is why the word - Christian - does not mean much to me. I feel no loyalty to Christianity, but I do feel a great loyalty to Christ, who was (and is) certainly not anti-Semitic.

[ 08. October 2013, 09:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Neither did He use obscenities and insist on being clinically (get the ambiguity?) 'logical' rather than encouraging.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

He who is without sin has just cast the first stone.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for Christians... well, they do all sorts of things, much of which I disagree with. That is why the word - Christian - does not mean much to me. I feel no loyalty to Christianity, but I do feel a great loyalty to Christ, who was (and is) certainly not anti-Semitic.

You should probably update your profile.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

... or maybe not, because I am sure that most people are intelligent enough to understand how words are used differently in different contexts.

Come to think of it, I am actually an 'atheist', because that is what some of the early followers of Christ were called within the Roman Empire. P'raps I will amend my profile after all... [Snigger]

[ 08. October 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... or maybe not, because I am sure that most people are intelligent enough to understand how words are used differently in different contexts.

Which just confirms you're doing nothing here except playing semantic games and advancing arguments you don't really believe.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

If that is the case, then clearly I am not the only one!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If that is the case, then clearly I am not the only one!

Well that makes it okay then, right?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

No, but it certainly helps you brush up on your Googling skills.

(BTW... you may have noticed that I am not taking you very seriously, because I can see that you are just playing a futile game of one-upmanship. If you really want a serious discussion about anti-Semitism, then fine. Otherwise, I am bored with this silly pastime, so purleeease, do have the last word...

And consider yourself to have won! Aren't you lucky...)

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

If you want to get personal, take it to hell. You should not need reminding of this for the nth time.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is that a confession EE?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0