Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    the cross


    "The Cross is a most despicable emblem, a symbol of death and genocide
    to the Jews.


    As I have read the writings of Josephus I am beginning to find it
    EXTREMELY difficult to even think of the MENTAL anguish and UTTER
    despair of the Jews as they observed Jesus believers with an EMBLEM
    that was used to EXTERMINATE Jews.


    It is MIND SHATTERING.


    Could a religion today use the EMBLEM of a NOOSE and asked people to
    worship in a CHURCH with a NOOSE?


    This is Josephus on the SHEER HORROR of the CROSS.


    Wars of the Jews 5.11.2.
    Quote:

    ... So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews,
    nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after
    another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so
    great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for
    the bodies. (19)....


    I don't want to see another CROSS it is JUST to painful.


    Why was a most HORRENDOUS SYMBOL of DEATH and Genocide to the Jews
    used in the Christian Church?





    Did Jews and Gentiles See The Same Thing When They Looked Up At The
    Cross?





    It's a basic question which I think never gets asked enough - was the
    Cross really meant to be a welcoming sight for Jews and Samaritans? If
    you're a modern Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist the Cross is
    so prevalent in contemporary culture that it is difficult to imagine
    looking at it a new set of eyes.


    Yet that's the problem.


    Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't
    see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have
    such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the
    characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic
    traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to
    their ancestors in the first century period.


    But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally
    put the pieces together regarding Christian origins. "


    The central question is - when and why did the ancients start
    venerating the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course
    the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared
    crucified' on one of these things or that Paul was the 'first
    theologian' of Christianity who 'invented' a religious doctrine of
    crucifixion.


    On some level the answer people like this are giving you is that 'God'
    gave us the religion of the Cross.


    To me this appeal to a bat kol always seems like a cop out. When you
    read Josephus's account of the Jewish War and its description of the
    manner in which crosses were used to terrify the rebellious Jews
    hiding behind the walls of Jerusalem one wonders whether God was
    fulfilling Daniel's prophesy by means of this 'abomination' or the
    κοσμοκράτωρ (cosmocrator) with some skillful help from a certain
    someone who knew "all customs and questions which are among the
    Jews." (Acts 26:3)


    new testament

    quotes from neil godfrey's articles


    jews = krist killers. "the jews" means jews CONTEMPORARY to jeezuz?

    Having insisted that 1 Thess 2:13-16 was indeed written by Paul, Eddy
    and Boyd (The Jesus Legend) must now attempt to argue that the
    contents of the passage are not antisemitic.

    One of the slogans of antisemitism through the ages has been "the Jews
    killed Christ". The author of this Thessalonians passage puts the
    blame for the death of Jesus squarely, solely and unequivocally on the
    Jews:

    For you have suffered the same things from your own country-men, just
    as they did from the Jews, who killed both the lord Jesus and their
    own prophets, and have persecuted us . . .
    Birger A. Pearson ("1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline
    Interpolation" Harvard Theological Review (1971): 85) observes that in
    all other letters of Paul,


    [Paul] never attributes the death of Jesus to the Jews. 1 Corinthians
    2:8 is the best example of Paul's own view: Jesus was brought to his
    death by the demonic "rulers of this age" who did not know that by
    doing so they would defeat themselves in the process.
    (Pearson remarks in passing that Origen in his commentary on Matthew
    interprets "the rulers of this age" in this way.)

    Eddy and Boyd's "rebuttal" of the above


    Could Paul really have accused the Jews of killing Christ? Why
    certainly! say E&B, but he didn't mean to sound like he was blaming
    "all Jews", or only the Jews, collectively:


    There is simply no reason to suppose that Paul could not have believed
    that several groups - including some Jews and some secular authorities
    and/or spiritual powers - were responsible for bringing this event
    about. (213)
    Note how E&B deftly convey the idea that only "some Jews" were
    indirectly responsible ("bringing this event about") for the death of
    Christ. Only "some Jews"? That's not what is said in 1 Thessalonians
    2.

    But what is the evidence E&B have that Paul did not write what he
    supposedly (according to E&B) believed?



    reading gospel material which came later in to pauls writings:

    [A]ll four canonical Gospels and Acts ascribe responsibility for
    Jesus' death to Jews and Romans . . . and there is little reason to
    think that Paul's view was necessarily more narrow. (213, citing
    Weatherly)

    And there you have it. That's all the "evidence" E&B offer to assure
    us that 1 Thess 2:15-16 is not blaming the Jews alone for killing
    Christ. Paul's silence does not stop us from knowing what he was
    really thinking. If Paul wrote that "the Jews" killed Christ, then we
    can be sure that behind his written word he really meant that only
    some Jews, along with the Romans, as well as a few bad angels, were
    responsible "for bringing about" the death of Christ. How can we be
    sure of this? E&B answer by saying they can't think of a reason to
    deny it! If others who wrote long after Paul, and who frequently
    expressed teachings quite contrary to Paul's (e.g. Matthew, Luke-
    Acts), if these thought it, then so did Paul. Why not? conclude E&B.



    In short, E&B declare that we do not need the words in Paul's writings
    to know what he was thinking. And if we see something in his letters
    we do not like, then we can be sure Paul did not mean it in the way it
    might sound at face value.


    Here is Birger Pearson again, this time noting when Christians first
    began to attribute the destruction of Jerusalem to the guilt of the
    Jews for killing Christ. (Keep in mind Paul wrote his letter/s in the
    50's ce)

    It will certainly not do to use the speeches in Acts as an example of
    the early origin of this topos, for . . . one finds very little of
    primitive Palestinian Christianity in the speeches of Acts; on the
    whole the speeches reflect the work and thought of the author of Luke-
    Acts. In my view, one must look to a time after 70 AD for such a
    development. (p. 84)


    Perhaps even a time after the second Jewish (Bar Kochba) war (135 ce)
    might also be considered.


    Blaming "the Jews" collectively: Antisemitism or Convention of
    Corporate Identification?



    1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 says a lot of nasty things about "the Jews".


    "The Jews"


    · killed the lord Christ. <------------------- this played a major role in killing and nailing hundreds and thousands of jews.


    · killed their own prophets.


    · persecuted the church.


    · do not please God.


    · are against all mankind.


    · try to stop the gospel being preached.


    · are always filling up the totality of all their sins.


    · have suffered the wrath of God to the uttermost finality.


    Did "Paul" here really mean "the Jews"? Of course not, say E&B. He
    only meant "some" Jews.


    In support of this claim that Paul was not expressing hostility
    against Jews in general, E&B refer readers to Jeffrey Lamp.


    Jeffrey Lamp has read 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 in light of Testament of
    Levi 6 and concluded:


    Both the context of 1 Thess 2:13-16 and the comparison with Testament
    of Levi 6 strongly suggests that the use of generalizing language
    neither consigns all individuals within the group of "the Jews" to
    perdition nor implies that all individuals within this group are
    guilty of any or all points of Paul's indictment against the group.
    [J. S. Lamp, "Is Paul Anti-Semitic (sic*)? Testament of Levi 6 in the
    Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16." CBQ 65 (2003): 427.]


    (*- the online version of this article has 'Anti-Jewish")


    Well that does sound reassuring. Unfortunately when one reads the full
    article by Jeffrey Lamp that reassurance vanishes. (One soon learns to
    check E&B's footnotes to see if they really do support what they are
    arguing!)


    The individual exceptions, according to Lamp, are the logical ones
    listed in the 2:13-16 itself:


    the Jewish Christians in Judea that are being persecuted by their fellow Jews the Jewish prophets of old whom the Jews killed Jesus Christ himself, whom the Jews killed But isn't that how antisemitism has always worked? The only good Jew is one who forsakes his Jewishness and converts to Christianity? If those are the only exceptions then we have no grounds for ameliorating
    the antisemitic message of these verses.




    Lamp compares the Thessalonian passage with a remarkably similar one
    in Testament of Levi 6. In the Testament, it is the Shechemites who
    (like the Jews)


    bear the mark of the covenant, circumcision;

    had a lengthy history of persecuting an individual (Dinah) in the
    family of Jacob and the whole house of Abraham;

    have their whole city punished for their crime(s)
    Even though only one individual Shechemite had been responsible for
    the rape of Dinah,
    Levi considered it a just thing that the whole city
    be regarded as culpable and punished. Their ancestors had, after all,
    given Abraham a hard time, too.




    The reckoning of culpability was made on the basis of corporate
    identification, irrespective of whether each individual Shechemite
    man, woman, or child had actually done anything themselves to deserve
    such recompense.
    (p.423)

    If the conceptual parallels between the passages (Test Levi 6 and 1
    Thess 2:13-16) hold . . . then it would seem that Paul considers "the
    Jews" corporately responsible for the catalogue of crimes (1 Thess
    2:15-16a) and the habitual disposition that led to these crimes (v.
    16b), and thus liable to the judgment for them (v. 16c). This manner
    of characterization reflects the covenantal and prophetic conventions
    of corporate identification found in the OT. (p.424)

    Okayyy . . . well assigning corporate identity and responsibility to a
    whole race on account of the actions of some of that race sounds like
    a euphemism for plain old dirty racism to me
    . But because we find it
    throughout the Holy Book it cannot be called "racist stereotyping"
    but, rather, a "convention of corporate identification". Sweet.


    E&B have once again offered pabulum to their readers. They have
    suppressed the real facts in the article they cite in support of their
    assertion that the passage in question is not antisemitic. The fact is
    that there is no way to avoid the conclusion that this passage implies
    that the only good Jews are those who have converted to Christianity
    and who are accordingly hated by their fellow Jews.


    But there are a few other very strong antisemitisms in these verses
    that E&B for some reason completely fail to mention, let alone
    dispute. Maybe they reasoned that sometimes the best rebuttal is to
    ignore an uncomfortable argument.


    Will discuss these in a future post.


    The Amplified Bible version of 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16:


    Who killed both the lord jesus and the prophets, and harassed and
    drove us out, and continue to make themselves hateful and offensive to
    God and to show themselves foes of all men
    ,
    Forbidding and hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles (the
    nations) that they may be saved. So as always they fill up [to the
    brim the measure of] their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at
    last [completely and forever]!


    Eddy and Boyd have surprisingly little to say about the often remarked
    antisemitic tone of this passage:



    Likewise, the charge that the perspective of this passage is too "anti-
    Semitic" to have come from Paul is less than effective. Recently,
    Jeffrey Lamp has read 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 in light of Testament of
    Levi 6 and concluded:
    Both the context of 1 Thess 2:13-16 and the comparison with Testament
    of Levi 6 strongly suggests that the use of generalizing language
    neither consigns all individuals within the group of "the Jews" to
    perdition nor implies that all individuals within this group are
    guilty of any or all points of Paul's indictment against the group.

    [J. S. Lamp, "Is Paul Anti-Semitic (sic*)? Testament of Levi 6 in the
    Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16." CBQ 65 (2003): 427.]


    (*- the online version of this article has 'Anti-Jewish")


    That is the total sum of their rebuttal of this point. (This was
    discussed in the previous post, (4)).


    I am curious as to why they bracketed the word anti-Semitic with
    inverted commas. Do E&B think that the passage is not really
    antisemitic, or that the accusation is not a serious one? Do they
    simply profess not to see what others "often remark" upon?


    In following up the discussion of this charge through the various
    articles they footnote, it seems that only one other author,
    (Simpson), demonstrates a similar hesitation to acknowledge a common
    observation:

    Gentile authors of the Hellenistic-Roman world repeatedly spoke of the
    Jews as a people which . . . were standoffish and hostile toward other
    people.
    Because these statements have been identified with "Gentile
    anti-Semitism," their appearance in 1 Thess 2:15 has been regarded as
    evidence against Pauline authorship of that verse. . . .
    <----------- wasn't written by paul?

    The writer of 1 Thess 2:15, for his part, uses ancient Gentile
    generalizations about Jews because of their suitability to the
    occasion, because, that is, they . . . link up with the continual
    sinfulness of "the Jews" . . . . (J. W. Simpson, "The Problems Posed
    by 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 and a Solution." Horizons in Biblical
    Theology 12 (1990) pp. 56-57)
    Strange how some modern authors cannot bring themselves to call a
    spade a spade when it comes to the Bible. Given the history of
    Christian antisemitism it is surely inexcusable for any public
    intellectual to hold their fire when addressing verses that have
    historically fanned that evil.



    Since E&B have nothing more to say about the antisemitism of these
    verses, I thought it worthwhile to fill the gap. It is, after all, a
    most significant point in the argument over whether these verses were
    written by Paul or inserted by a later forger - as Simpson, quoted
    above, acknowledges.


    Jeffrey Lamp writes of this passage (though E&B do not mention this):


    What puzzles interpreters is the transparently harsh tone. Hagner
    argues that the language of indictment is both polemical and highly
    emotional . . . (J. S. Lamp. "Is Paul Anti-Jewish?" Catholic


    Biblical Quarterly 65 (2003): 411)


    Jeffrey Lamp also cites F. F. Bruce's description of these words as
    an "indiscriminate anti-Jewish polemic" that is "incongruous on the
    lips of Paul." (Lamp, 408)



    On the Jews being contrary/hostile to all mankind




    Birger A. Pearson writes


    The phrase και πασιν ανθρωποις εναντιον [and are hostile against/
    contrary to all mankind] picks up a theme from Greco-Roman anti-
    Semitism, as was noticed already by Baur
    . It is somewhat surprising to
    find the characteristic Gentile charge of "misanthropy" against the
    Jews reflected in Pauline correspondence, though it is widespread in
    the Greco-Roman world of the period.
    ("1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A
    Deutero-Pauline Interpolation" Harvard Theological Review (1971): Vol.
    64 No. 1 p. 83)



    Pearson's footnotes direct readers to "Dibelius' commentary for
    discussion and for a list of texts from Greek and Latin authors
    illustrating pagan anti-Judaism . . ." and other French and German
    studies.


    Simpson attempts to qualify the racism of these gentile descriptors of
    Jews:

    These standardized statements about the Jews did reflect some truth
    about Jewish efforts to maintain the distinctiveness of Jewish life
    and religion. They are found earliest in writers whose objective was
    to satisfy curiosity (e.g. Hecataeus and Pliny). An Egyptian anti-
    Jewish tradition developed, but apparently did not reach beyond
    priestly circles before the Alexandrian crisis of the thirties and
    forties of the first century CE. The standardized statements did come
    to be used by anti-Jewish writers (e.g. Cicero, Tacitus, and Juvenal),
    but recent assessments have shown that these writers were not typical,
    as has been thought. (p.57)
    Simpson refers for support to studies by Gager and Stern in the
    1970's. I don't know the basis of those assessments or the state of
    scholarship since then. But regardless of the extent of their
    "typicality", the same charge as we expect from a Cicero, a Tacitus or
    a Juvenal is found here in 1 Thess 2:15. Philostratus, when he wrote
    the Life of Apollonius (of Tyana), put an antisemitic diatribe into
    the speech of a certain Euphrates:


    For the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but
    against humanity
    ; and a race that has made its own a life apart and
    irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the
    pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or
    sacrifices, are separated from ourselves . . . . (Philostratus, 5.33)






    It does not sound likely that the one who wrote the latter passages
    also wrote of Jews in stereotypical fashion as being hostile to the
    human race.


    The Jews continue to suffer ongoing punishment for their sinful nature


    When it comes to the charge that 1 Thess 2:15-16 proclaims that God is
    pouring out his wrath on the Jews for their sins, particularly for
    their killing Christ, Simpson is more willing to face up to the facts
    of the evidence. This section in 1 Thessalonians cannot be reconciled
    with Paul's thought in Romans.





    E&B's dismissal of the anti-Semitism of the passage


    Eddy and Boyd do not discuss the antisemitism of these Bible verses in
    any depth at all. They do not raise the antisemitic points addressed
    in the sources they quote in other contexts. Some of these overlap
    with other points raised in my earlier posts in this series, and with
    the one I raise in the next post.


    This post was simply to highlight that the antisemitic tone of this
    passage is something "often remarked" upon in the literature, but that
    Eddy and Boyd for some reason have opted essentially to bypass this
    observation.


    This is curious for two reasons. Antisemitism stands opposed to the
    sentiments expressed in other Pauline writings, and the charge E&B are
    attempting to refute is that this Thessalonians passage was not
    written by Paul. One would expect public intellectuals to responsibly
    denounce an interpretation of a passage that has been used for evil
    (as Simpson does), or to condemn the passage itself and not leave room
    for any of their readers to continue to use it for ill (Pearson).



    who is responsible, the romans or the jews?

    trial narratives



    Such prejudiced readings were epitomized in the fundie Rhutchins'
    post, which used an age-old interpretation of the Jesus story, founded
    on the last and least reliable of the Gospels, GJohn. In adopting this
    interpretation, Rhutchins clearly implied in his post that Jesus would
    have been a totally free man and would have died in old age had the
    Romans had full power in Jesus's time with no Jewish authorities
    acting as virtual Quislings at all!! Further down in this post, I deal
    with the greater implications in the very, very odd implications in
    what Rhutchins first wrote here.


    It's most important, first off, to understand that the age-old and
    deeply prejudiced interpretation of the Jesus story as a "tell"
    against Jews, all Jews and nothing but the Jews comes down to the
    GJohn proposition that the Jews were totally alone in their
    culpability for Jesus's death and that the Romans were virtual angels
    in comparison.
    OTOH, a look at the earlier Synoptic Gospels,
    particularly the earliest one, Mark, shows a very, very different
    story. The Jewish high priest may have initiated the arrest, but it
    was Roman "justice" that was needed to complete the execution. Roman
    "justice" could have demurred, but Pilate, out of sheer cowardice,
    went ahead with the execution. This is all made quite clear in GMark.
    So Pilate, the ROMAN, is just as guilty as the high priest.


    The age-old acceptance of the GJohn version as the whole story, a
    version that whitewashes the Romans and demonizes the Jewish people in
    extreme ways that none of the other Gospels quite do, has had deadly
    consequences. I
    n fact, GJohn is not all there is to the Jesus story at
    all. Quite the contrary. But prejudiced readers for centuries have
    viewed GJohn as the whole story when it isn't. The results of the
    deadly consequences of accepting the GJohn story, the whole GJohn
    story and nothing but the GJohn story as the truth, the whole truth
    and nothing but the truth have included pogroms without number against
    Jews for thousands of years, plus fostering a sick anti-Semitism in
    much biblical exegesis that persists to this very day.


    On this board, the fundie Rhutchins is but one tiny example of that
    knee-jerk brand of biblical exegesis. His implying that the Romans by
    themselves would have afforded Jesus total freedom(!!) would be just
    absurd were it not reflective of a hate-filled anti-Semitism of a
    centuries-old vintage in addition. Rhutchins' post is totally in line
    with a fundie reading of GJohn that I am very familiar with, having
    grown up in the Deep South of the United States in the '50s and '60s
    and remembering vividly the complacent references in daily
    conversation to "those Jews" having killed "our Lord" and those "nice
    Romans" who jus' couldn't stop it.
    These attitudes were of a piece
    with the quotas for Jews in many an organization and club down there
    and with many another deeply prejudiced institution and social habit
    founded on the same bigotry.


    It is absurd and naive to pretend that this age-old habit of pinning
    our entire reading of the Jesus story on GJohn isn't both the cause
    and the continued result of and from much Jewish persecution through
    the centuries since the Jesus story was first told. Rhutchins' post
    reflects a long-term, centuries-old, and deeply prejudiced reading of
    the Jesus story centered on GJohn, and I am frankly astonished and
    nauseated at the -- professed -- obliviousness of other posters here
    to Rhutchins' clear aping of that "time-honored tradition".


    Actually, since this split-off was the result of Rhutchins' bigoted
    idolizing of the Romans as virtual angels (YUK!!) and consequent
    demonizing of ALL Jews (DOUBLE YUK!!!!), this new thread is badly
    misnamed. This exchange does NOT have to do with anti-Semitism in
    ancient times at all. Nothing of that kind was even being discussed
    back in the Corinthians thread. It has to do with continued anti-
    Semitism TODAY, as shown very clearly in the way that fundies like
    Rhutchins grab on to GJohn and read its "implications" as virtual
    hagiography for the Romans (who virtually invented imperialism, for
    crying out loud) and quite overt demonization of "those Jews". The
    present Subject Head distorts the crucial center of the whole
    discussion that started in the Corinthians thread, with its vital
    question on how much the deeply prejudiced readings of the Jesus story
    TODAY, as propagated in fundie wink-wink land TODAY, foster Jew-hatred
    TODAY.

    jesus's words of love:


    "Chapter 23 describes the famous diatribe of Jesus against the Jewish
    leaders. Such biblical words has, for centuries, given believers
    justification for Jewish hatred.
    This verse, spoken by the alleged
    Jesus himself, compares the unbelieving Jews with the serpent devil.
    "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they
    are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come
    and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
    These verses by Jesus has fueled the engine of anti-Semitism
    throughout Europe and the rest of the world for centuries
    .
    Unfortunately many believers today still justify their hatred of Jews
    based on Scripture. source"



    jews means judaeas?


    REFUTATION 3: "[pp.] 56-8...'Jews' in the NT actually means
    'Judaeans' -- as opposed to something like Samaritans or Galileeans or Romans,
    people whose origins were in the political entity known as Judaea.
    I had argued that "Jews" in Acts, among other places, functioned as a
    "collective" designation and that some NT authors believe in
    collective punishment for the group identified as "the Jews."


    Holding attempts to whitewash this anti-Judaic tendency in some NT
    authors by arguing that "Jews" is ONLY a description of territorial/
    political origins (Judea) and not any sort of religious designation.
    First, Holding confuses etymological origins of the word "Jew" with
    how it was used and redefined in later times. In fact, the first use
    of the word is may not be territorial, but tribal. It describes the
    descendants of Judah, regardless of where they are born.
    One can be born in the territory called Judea and still not be a Jew.


    Many gentiles were born in Judea, and were not designated as Jews.
    And "Jews" can definitely include a religious feature, as is clear in
    Revelation 3:8-9:


    [8] "`I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open
    door,which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little
    power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name[9]
    Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they
    are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and
    bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.

    Here, "Jews" has to do with a religious or symbolic affiliation, and
    not a territorial-political affiliation, as the letter is addressed
    to those in a church in what is now Turkey
    . Similarly, in Galatians
    2:14, religious practices do have a role in making someone Jewish or
    Gentile:

    But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of
    the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew,
    live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the
    Gentiles to live like Jews?"


    Clearly, living "like a Jew" has nothing to do with living like
    someone in Judea, but rather with observing certain religious
    practices (e.g., circumcision) REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU WERE BORN or
    living.
    That is why sometimes it is necessary to specify that Jews
    were living in Jerusalem where, by Holding's territorial origin
    definition, no further specification should be necessary, as in Acts


    2:5: "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from
    every nation under heaven."

    COLLECTIVE RETRIBUTION

    More importantly, Holding also seems to ignore that collective
    retribution was a recognized part of biblical thinking. This is clear
    in Exodus 20:5:


    "...for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
    of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation
    of those who hate me."



    Holding's only defense contends that spatial limitations preclude
    notions of collective thinking on the part of biblical authors. So he
    offers this humorous mathematical rejoinder:

    Is Avalos truly so thick as to imagine that Luke is envisioning
    hundreds of thousands of Judaeans (however he defines them) leaving
    their home nation and crowding into the synagogue meeting at Antioch
    for the purpose of inciting a handful of people in that city against
    Paul?


    No, Holding is the one too neurally ossified to realize that the
    author of Acts implies that, when speaking of a particular locality,
    actions by "Jews" may refer only to the Jews living in that locality.
    Sometimes this is specified as in Acts 9:22-23:

    [22] But Saul increased all the more in strength,and confounded the
    Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. [23]
    When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,

    Thus, we are to understand that "Jews" in v.23 means "the Jews living
    in Damascus" mentioned in v. 22. Similarly, in Acts 13:50, "Jews"
    reasonably refers to the Jews in Antioch, the locality mentioned
    already in vv. 43 and 45.


    But that still does not address the problem of collective punishment
    and guilt, which can be extended to a whole group even if not all of
    its members were present
    , or even if they did not all perform any
    specific action described.
    Holding ignores that one need not be
    present or even alive not be reckoned with being guilty of a crime
    committed by one or a few people belong to a particular group.


    Yes, the Bible repeatedly punishes whole groups of people for the
    actions of a few, as follows:



    1. The killing of all men, women, children of the earth in Noah's
    Flood (not to mention all animals not aboard Noah's Ark). The
    biblical author had no problem with biocide here, even if animals and infants
    did not participate in any "sins" for which God destroyed humankind
    (except Noah and his family) in Genesis 6-7.


    2. Children to the fourth and fifth generations for those who hate
    Yahweh (Exodus 20:5).


    3. The killing of Amalekite children for the actions of their
    ancestors (1 Samuel 15:2-3).


    4. All of humanity for the sins of Adam (Romans 5:12ff), especially
    if you follow some orthodox Christian interpretation of imputation
    Given such notions of collective punishment, what would prevent NT
    authors from holding similar views about Jews, especially if they are
    redefined as those opposed to the true Jews (= Christians) as
    suggested in Revelation 3:9?


    Thus, the collective guilt imputed to "the Jews" by some NT authors (e.g., Matthew 27:25) is very much consistent with this view of collective guilt and punishment we find repeatedly in the Bible.


    Furthermore, Holding's complaint that I have succumbed to political
    correctness and paranoia because I point out the anti-Gentilism in
    the NT overlooks that rather conservative academic scholars have also
    commented on anti-gentilism in the NT. One example is Luke T.
    Johnson, who says: "The NT's harshest polemic by far is reserved for Gentiles,
    in which it appropriates the themes of contemporary Jewish
    polemic" (Luke T. Johnson, ,"The New Testament Anti-Jewish Slander
    and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, Journal of Biblical Literature
    108, no. 3 [Fall, 1989]:441, n. 66).


    In sum, what Holding seems to hate is his own Bible's support of
    collective punishment. He cannot stand the fact that this is a
    morally reprehensible practice, and so he tries to pretend it does not exist
    among his cherished NT authors




    how the trial narratives become more and more pro roman and more anti jewish

    And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto
    them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
    (the link is to Greek lexicon definition)

    There is none of the pressure on Pilate in Mark's gospel that we are
    used to reading in the later gospels. No disturbing dreams, no hand-
    washing, no fear of a riot, no lying blackmail, no loud shouts that
    hurt his ears.
    The only places we read of these, along with an
    explicit desire or willingness to release Jesus, are in the gospels of
    Matthew, Luke and John. They are alien to Mark.


    Mark's gospel, in fact, defiantly stands in opposition to those who
    build on it when it explicitly says that Pilate's desire was not to
    release Jesus but to please the mob, and that without any hint of
    pressure to do so. Is the reader meant to think "bread and
    circuses"?


    Matthew 27:19-26


    Matthew even introduces Pilate's wife who has a dream she has to
    convey to her husband in the midst of his judicial hearing of Jesus.
    We are not told if Pilate cringed in embarrassment or was shaken just
    a little. The author's intent is to inform the audience of the
    mounting pressures on Pilate to release Jesus, and it is clear that
    Pilate in his heart knows Jesus is innocent, and deep down does not
    want any responsibility for the death of Jesus. In Matthew's gospel
    Pilate washes his hands to publicly declare his innocence and to make
    clear that the blood of Jesus is entirely the responsibility of the
    Jews:


    When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him,
    saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have
    suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

    But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they
    should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

    1. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain
    will
    ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
    2. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is
    called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
    3. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried
    out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
    When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a
    tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the
    multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:
    see ye to it.

    Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on
    our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had
    scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.


    Thus Pilate finally succumbs because the crowd "made a tumult" that
    he could not resist.


    It might be noteworthy, furthermore, that Pilate did not act until
    after the crowd insisted that they alone took the responsibility of
    the blood of Jesus upon themselves and their future generations,
    completely (in their own minds at least) exonerating Pilate
    .


    Matthew's account might well be interpreted as an early attempt to
    inject a lethal dose of anti-semitism into the gospel story. Poor
    Pilate, pressured by his own judgement, his wife's dream, and the
    crowd's "tumult", finally caved in.


    It is more valid, I'm sure, to interpret the passage through the
    narrative's agenda. Pilate wasn't doing the normal "handwash" custom
    of the Jews -- that custom of handwashing before meals is an
    anachronism anyway. It was confined to a few Pharisees, and not
    common among all Jews till after 70 c.e. (Crossley, 2004). As per Funk and
    the Jesus Seminar, Matthew is looking back to Deut 21:1-9 where
    handwashing is required of one seeking to be free from blood guilt
    for murder. Also Psalm 26:6 has handwashing as a symbol of innocence.
    Matthew then structures the sequence carefully so that the crowd
    follow by taking the blood-guilt on themselves and their children.


    My disgust is directed at those people who continue to do that today
    to the exclusion of the Romans. Jesus was executed by the Romans. And
    the fact that each sequent Gospel veers less and less against the
    Romans and more and more against the "old Jews" than the one before it
    makes the whole game of only blaming the "old Jews" highly suspect.


    ROMAN PROPAGANDA AGAISNT THE JEWS

    Look at the reality of what would have happened, which is that the
    Romans would only have crucified him if he were an insurrectionist or
    a murderer, the two primary capital offenses they reserved for
    crucifixion. That makes the Romans "christ killers." Well, the Romans
    wrote the history, so they had to come up with a way to make
    themselves look good, so that the cult member ignores the fact that ultimately
    they killed Jesus. They weren't brutal oppressors, it was the "Jews"
    that were the bad guys. It wasn't us that killed god; it was them.
    Heck, we even tried to save him! We gave them a choice and they are
    the ones who chose to have us brutally torture and murder god. We used to
    release one criminal--any one they chose so it was entirely their
    fault we brutally flayed and nailed god to a cross. See? How else do you
    spin the fact that you killed god by nailing him to a cross for
    insurrection? That's where you get all the pro-roman crap. Problem is, it's not
    that well-written by any kind of critical thinking standard; solution is,
    nobody but the cult leaders back then could read and there was little
    to no critical thinking going on at all




    Let us all go to the book of Revelations now, specifically Revelations chapter 3 verse 9:




    Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.



    Today's Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah are the ones who are being referred to in this verse! Hence here we have a sweeping generalization on most Jews that they are liars, and actually belong to the synagogue of satan! I guess this is the Christian love

    http://muslim-responses.com/Hate_Speech/Hate_Speech_


    "father forgive them for they not what they are doing"

    according to scholars the gospels are written in ANTI-SEMITIC greek enviroment.

    the "forgiving" statement is luke in not to be found in any other gospel.


    if matthew had known about the statement ,why the need to mention /talk about what happen in the trial scene? why mention that the jews were given a chance to free jesus, but instead had barabus freed instead? why mention that pilate washes his hands i.e clear his name? why mention that the jews and thier unborn children to come take responsibility for killing jesus? "his blood be upon us and our CHILDREN" (not found in luke) <------ IN THIS statement/quotation does it look like that mat wished for the jews to be forgiven? coupled with what they said before this statement/quotation and coupled with "It might be noteworthy, furthermore, that Pilate did not act until after the crowd insisted that they alone took the responsibility of the blood of Jesus upon themselves and their future generations, completely (in their own minds at least) exonerating Pilate. "
    Does it look like that the authour of matthew saw/HEARD a jesus who said, "father forgive them for they know not what they are doing" ? why matthew did not COMPRESS his account ,write the following ,"he was crucified and then cried out to the father to forgive them and then he died" ? matthews unverified quotations attributed to the jews played a massive role in loss of life.the DAMNED RACE (luthers words) were damned and beyond forgiveness.


    paul


    So when Paul went among the keepers of the Law, he pretended to be a keeper of the Law and played the pharisee to gain their confidence and in the evenings, in intimate brotherly conversations, insinuated his departure from the Law and falsification of the Good News. When he went among those without any Law, he pretended to have no Law; while in fact he knew the Law intimately and "kept it" as he chose from moment to moment, or rejected it, just as he says throughout his
    writings, or falsified it, claiming that Jesus had "finished" the Law and it was no more, or that "all things" were already "fulfilled" in some future pie-in-the-sky scenario.



    paul


    I found your article interesting, and to be honest, I think all this
    author is referring from is Paul! If one reads Galatains today, it is
    certainly evident that the hatred towards Judaism was certainly
    against the Mosaic Law and the supposed ‘harsh laws’ that Jews had to
    abide by. It is interesting, how Paul aims to persuade the Gentiles
    who lived in Galatia at the time to divert from Judaism, but
    unfortunately his arguments were weak in my opinion and not coherent
    at all! Therefore, all of the criticism that Paul displayed towards
    the Jews has certainly influenced Christians today to feel the same
    way about Jews. One example, which I can certainly bet on is that, if
    you look into a thesaurus today and look up the word ‘Pharisee’ you
    will find find the word ‘hyprocrite’ or ‘hyprocrisy’…and the true
    Pharisees were not meant to be hyprocrites at all! again it’s just the
    letters of Paul and the conflict between the political authorities in
    the Gospels that has led to this view of Judaism, being ‘inadequate’.
    I hope I have answered a slight bit of your question Paul.
    Last edited by theman09; 4th September 2010 at 15:38.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    jewish beliefs v christian beliefs

    Judaism

    Torah (Hebrew Bible) is eternal

    Christianity

    Torah replaced by new testament


    Judaism

    Following G-d's commandments

    christianity

    Salvation by faith in Jesus

    Judaism
    Born Innocent

    christianity
    Original Sin

    Judaism
    Pure monotheism - Only G-d

    christianity
    Trinity - father, son, holy ghost

    Judaism
    Repentance, return - Teshuvah

    Christianity
    Atonement by crucifixion

    Judaism
    Belief in the future Messiah
    While not every detail of the Messiah might have been agreed upon, a few things were definitive. He would be an heir to David and Solomon and he would restore their kingdom. That was the essence of the Annointed. He would be a human king. He was not supposed to be a redeemer of sins and he was most definitely not supposed to be God. There was and is no other definition of the Jewish Messiah

    Christianity
    Crucified messiah has redeemed the world



    In Second Temple Judaism there were various Jewish groups who espoused different religious ideologies. I have no intention of discussing messianic trends in non-canonical Jewish writings. My main sources of reference will be the Hebrew Bible and authoritative ancient Rabbinic views.

    I must make it clear from the start, however, that the concept of a dead and risen Jewish messiah – even if it was current among some Jewish quarters at the time - must be rejected. Such a concept of Jewish messiah would not only have been foreign to ancient Middle Eastern Jewish culture and traditions, but would also have been considered heretical by the earlier Hebrew Prophets, and by contemporaneous Jewish Sages. There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about a dead and risen mashiah, and there is not even a hint in the Vision of Gabriel about such an individual.


    http://victorsasson.blogspot.com/200...essiah-in.html



    And yet, while Judaism has long ago rejected Yeshu as the anticipated messiah, Islam accepted this poor Middle Eastern Jew as a prophet. Islam, thus, has recognized that the concept of a divine messiah as portrayed in the ‘new’ Testament is false. The Quran is clear on this focal point: ‘God does not beget, nor is He begotten’ – ‘lam yalid, walam yulad’.
    Islam in fact has many admirable elements, in particular its emphasis on the Unity of God, as formulated in the Pentateuch and in the Hebrew Prophets, and so important in the Jewish faith. The Jewish credo is “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one”. Islam’s emphasis on the Unity of God makes Islam truly a very close relation of the Jewish faith. And this fact has been recognized by Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen, a letter he wrote to the Jews of Yemen, in a response he made to them.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Why do so many Evangelical Christians expend so much effort
    disparaging Islam and Muslims? I am rereading From Jesus to Christ:
    The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus by Paula Fredriksen,
    Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University.
    Unwittingly she provides a possible answer to this question by
    describing the persistent attraction of Judaism for Gentiles in the
    early centuries after Christ. Curiously, the early Church fathers most
    often expended their energies criticising Judaism (see example below),
    rather than the idolatry of the Roman Empire, or its brutal abuse of
    power. Fredriksen identifies the reason why: Judaism represented an
    attractive alternative to the new religion of Pauline Christianity.
    Similarly, for many thoughtful people in the West, Islam represents an
    attractive alternative to the illogicalities of Trinitarianism.
    Evangelicalism’s prime directive therefore is to eliminate its
    principal rival: Islam. An ironic goal, as followers of the latter
    religion believe in Jesus the Christ and the prophets sent to Israel
    as well.



    She writes:


    Judaism was more than a standard challenge to Christian identity; it
    was also a competitor for Gentile adherents. During this period [1st
    and 2nd centuries] and long after, Gentiles continued to attach
    themselves to the synagogue for the same reasons that had always drawn
    them before: Judaism’s monotheism, its antiquity, its articulated
    ethics and strong community, its claims to revelation, and its
    prestigious sacred text. The rise of the Gentile Christianity is
    itself the best evidence of Judaism’s appeal: the church, though it
    repudiated the synagogue, also used it socially and religiously as a
    model. Christianity thereby offered to Gentiles fewer of Judaism’s
    disadvantages (circumcision for adult males; association with a
    nationality implicated, after the bloody revolts of 66, 117, and 132,
    in anti-Roman activity) but many of the same attractions (strong
    community, revealed ethical guidelines, and the scriptures themselves
    – already available, thanks to the Hellenistic synagogue, in Greek).

    But the churches competed for these Gentiles against a religious
    community both better established and more broadly recognised. Here
    Christianity again offers the best evidence of Judaism’s abiding
    appeal. Christian invective, from the gospels through the writings of
    the second-century fathers and beyond, most often and most
    energetically targeted Judaism. Why? If its goal were to wrest
    Gentiles from the errors of paganism, one would expect more attention
    to polemics against idolatry; if its goal were to condemn the
    unethical exercise of power, one would expect stronger criticism of
    the empire, which after all had executed the Saviour and continued,
    sporadically, to persecute his followers. Why expend so much effort
    disparaging a community ostensibly engaged in compatible activity,
    turning Gentiles from idolatry to the worship of the God revealed in
    scripture? Because, to those Gentiles drawn to such religions and such
    communities, Judaism represented an attractive alternative to the
    church.


    pp 211-212


    From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus
    by Paula Fredriksen, Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at
    Boston University


    The new ‘anti-Semitism’


    It may be illuminating by way of example to cite recent statements of
    what I call the new anti-semitism: disparaging rhetoric now emanating
    from evangelical circles about Islam. Notice how it parallels the
    toxic anti-Jewish rhetoric that was virtually ubiquitous in the early
    church.


    Nabeel Qureshi is an outspoken member of the resurgent Christian anti-
    Islam movement in the United States. On the Answering Muslim website
    he recently wrote


    “Muslim terrorists are just that, the embodiment of Islam” (blog entry
    February 2010).


    Rev Franklin Graham (son of evangelist Billy Graham) told the press
    that “Islam as a very evil and wicked religion.” On a radio broadcast
    he said: “Islam is a terror organization.”


    Televangelist Rev Pat Robertson on Muslims and their faith: “These
    people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it’s
    motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize
    what we’re dealing with.”


    As is well documented, virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric has been the
    besetting sin of Christianity. Here are two representative examples
    from prominent and hugely influential Christians of the past.


    John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), was an important early church Father.
    The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches honour him as a saint and
    Doctor of the Church. Chrysostom preached: “The Jews … are worse than
    wild beasts … lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and
    drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the
    pig. They know only … to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill
    and beat each other up … I hate the Jews … I hate the Synagogue … it
    is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.


    I quote a longer extract from the most famous of the Protestant
    Christians and Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. I warn the
    reader that his words are extremely offensive. In 1543 he wrote:


    “What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
    Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and
    blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to
    share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot
    quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews.
    We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity.
    Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must
    not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times
    more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.


    First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not
    burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may
    ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done
    for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see
    that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or
    approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and
    His Christians.


    Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed.
    For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their
    synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in
    a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are
    not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as
    they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.


    Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in
    which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.


    Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
    teach any more…


    Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely
    forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural
    districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor
    the like. Let them stay at home…If you princes and nobles do not close
    the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride
    against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are
    and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You
    ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want
    to share all their abomination…


    To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if
    this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that
    you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the
    Jews… Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have
    suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at
    least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a
    definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew
    you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has
    cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus
    Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it
    prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all
    Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he
    himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate
    our goods… Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish
    lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and
    still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune. I have read
    and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment
    of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations,
    kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent
    another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood,
    together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew
    was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping
    of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as
    we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this.
    However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares
    that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents,
    assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm
    stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would
    like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other
    heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous
    serpents and young devils…next to the devil, a Christian has no more
    bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord
    as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from
    these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.”


    Translated by Martin H. Bertram, On The Jews and Their Lies, Luther’s
    Works, Volume 47; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.


    The question remains therefore: how can Muslims constructively respond
    to this resurgent ‘new anti-semitism’?


    Firstly, there is the important Qur’anic principle of responding with
    what is better, and not being dragged into the abusive slanging
    matches so often seen on the Internet (and elsewhere). Secondly,
    despite the apparent predominance of evangelicalism in the world there
    are important points of discussion that can be had with committed
    Christians who do want to engage in respectful dialogue.


    These points might include the fact that all religious traditions
    emphasise God’s love for the poor and outcast; the importance of
    understanding the Islamic belief that God’s love makes redemption
    available throughout history, not only during a defined period two
    thousand years ago; the urgent need to deconstruct the media
    stereotype often imposed upon Muslims (as on Jews in the past) as
    being violent and legalistic.


    Our contribution as Muslims to this ongoing discussion is that we
    worship a God who while being the source of justice, is nevertheless
    absolutely free in His love and mercy to forgive whom He chooses. To
    Christians we say that this appears to us considerably less legalistic
    than a theology that considers mankind’s sinfulness a debt that He
    must collect. Finally, we ask evangelicals to acknowledge the
    ‘Judaeophobia’ to be found in the New Testament itself (for example
    John 8: 44,47, ‘You [the Jews] belong to your father, the devil, and
    you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the
    beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
    When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the
    father of lies. 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The
    reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.‘), and
    recognise how this has generated hatred towards the Jews throughout
    nearly two thousand years of Christian history. This acknowledgement
    (belatedly made by many non-evangelical Christian theologians) might
    lead to a greater evangelical sensitivity to how the early Christians
    demonised Jews and the Jewish faith, and lead, inshallah, to a much
    needed reappraisal of the current disparagement of Muslims and Islam.


    As God says in the Holy Qur’an:


    Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a
    female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each
    other, not that you may despise each other. 49:13

  4. #4
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,836

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    theman09,

    You need to start posting your own words and not copy-n-paste in the middle of conversations. If you continue we will delete them.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    need to start posting your own words
    my comments are at the end of the first post.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    bible 1.jpg


    b2.jpg




    tj winter wrote on jews and jesus' crucifixion:


    Mainstream Sunni Islam has never required one to take a position here. The issue does not appear in the classical theology manuals. But what is unambiguously significant in this verse is (1) the exoneration of the Jews, even though they themselves claimed to have killed Jesus (Quran 4:157; Peter Schafer, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’). Hence the verse saves the Jews from the Gospel blood curse which has caused them such misery in Christendom. (2) the fact that the entire mass of paradoxical argument about who/what died at the crucifixion, a bone of such contention in Xtian history, is thankfully abolished


    paul wrote:

    Who killed both the lord jesus and the prophets, and harassed and
    drove us out, and continue to make themselves hateful and offensive to
    God and to show themselves foes of all men,
    Forbidding and hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles (the
    nations) that they may be saved. So as always they fill up [to the
    brim the measure of] their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at
    last [completely and forever]!


    ofcourse when paul sells his lies to jews living FAR AWAY from jerusalmem , he changes his tune. evangelical christians consider islam an unhealthy religion for society, well , the jews contemporary to paul considered pauls misinterpretation of torah unhealthy to thier religion.
    paul changes his tune like jude changes his tune with algebra.



    "You are not correct. Islam is not out to wipe out Jews. Otherwise both of my kids would be dead now (G-d forbid) since they both were taken care of in an in-home daycare by a devout Muslim woman when they were small. SOME Muslims have a problem with the existence of Medinat Yisrael - some Jews do too - but not with Am Yisrael. A few also have extended that into a hatred of Am Yisrael, but they are a small minority - albeit a violent one. But Islam and Muslims in general are NOT out to destroy Jews. You are overgeneralizing and actually are quite ignorant of the great diversity in Islam and among Muslims. By contrast, Evangelical Xians want to destroy every Jewish soul by converting it to idolatry. And BTW, some of the fiercest opponents of Mediant Yisrael - even among Palestinians - are Xian, not Muslim - do some research. "

    http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/3091?page=4


    note the highlighted bit? staunch jews would rather die than convert to a religion which says yhwh was badly man handled and then driven up a cross.




    "The Jewish people are both a religion, an ethnicity, and a culture. Godwithus wants to destroy two of those things, the religion -and- the culture, as this is a necessity of evangelism. Yet these are non-trivial parts of the identity of being Jewish. The ethnicity itself doesn't matter without the context of the culture or the religion. This seems to be the essential perspective of the Jewish people, who are either culturally Jewish or both culturally and religiously Jewish. Thus turning them into cultural and religious Christians is a very real destruction of the Jewish people to them, as the importance of Jewish ethnicity only comes from that culturally Jewish or culturally Jewish and religiously Jewish background. Many other self-identities also work on the basis of resisting proselytization (It is also an important part of Hindu identity). Since you come from a proselytizing culture you naturally don't really understand this point of view (It represents more of a current in Eastern thought than Western thought, making it an interesting point in which Judaism isn't necessarily in line with Western thought like when we like to think of the Eastern and Western religious divide.) "
    Last edited by theman09; 6th November 2010 at 14:12.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam




    Mark R. Cohen, a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, is arguably considered to be the world’s leading scholar of Jews living in the Middle Ages under Islamic rule. He decided to write a book that contrasted the treatment of Jews living in the Islamic Orient with their counterparts in the Christian West. This book, Under Crescent and Cross, is the first of its kind, as it analytically compares the treatment of Jewish dhimmis (pejoratively called dhimmitude by ideologues) with that of the Perpetua Servitudo (Perpetual Servitude) of Jewish infidels. Cohen’s magnum opus is remarkably balanced, neutral, and analytical: it rejects both myth and counter-myth, but concludes that while dhimmis were certainly not living under any sort of interfaith utopia, they did have better living conditions than nonbelievers in the Christian West. This article will use Professor Cohen’s book as a general template, but will cite other sources as well in order to cater to the online environment, taking into consideration the “internet chatter” and tailoring the arguments accordingly

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the...an-dhimmitude/





    When I began studying medieval Jewish history thirty years ago, conventional wisdom held that Jews living “under the crescent” enjoyed substantially greater security and a higher level of political and cultural integration than did Jews living “under the cross.” This was especially true of the persecuted Ashkenazic Jews of northern Europe. The fruitful Jewish-Muslim interfaith “symbiosis”…contrasted sharply with the sorrowful record of Jewish-Christian conflict in the Ashkenazic lands…[There was a] lachrymose conception of [European] Jewish history…

    Recent decades have witnessed an effort to alter this picture. Toward the end of the 1960s–or, or more precisely, following the Six-Day War of June 1967–factors stemming from the Arab-Israeli conflict gave birth in some quarters to a radical revision of Jewish-Arab history. The new notion first appeared mainly in the writings of nonspecialists publishing in popular forums…






    ...........





    Paul said, ?It was necessary that the word of God should first
    have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge
    yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles
    .

    lo we turn to the gentiles...


    Why? Because no orthodox Jew is going to fall for such nonsense, just
    as they still have not fallen for such nonsense for over two thousand
    years! Look, you can't win this. Paul was a liar if the synoptic
    accounts are true and if they aren't, well, then, you tell me where
    that places your cult. Regardless, he was more than likely just
    another in a long series of scam artists who was trying to form his
    own cult...


    When that didn't work and none of the more mainstream Jewish
    factions bought his nonsense about a resurrected Messiah (since they
    all knew the scriptures and no such prophesy had been fulfilled by
    anything they saw in their time) he FOCUSED instead on the Gentiles.
    They didn't know what the "prophets of old" prophesied, so Paul could
    get away with a hell of a lot more bull****, as is evidenced today by
    your fumbling apologetics.


    The mainstream Jews wouldn't follow his cult; the radical, reformist
    Jews wouldn't follow his cult; so, he travels FAR from any of it and
    focuses on the Gentiles, aka, pagans, who are so desperate to believe
    anything that they believe just about everything. After all, was Jesus
    (as depicted in the NT we have today, anyway) preaching judaism? No.
    Not in the slightest. He changes every orthodox law (including what is
    permitted on the holiest of all holy days, the Sabbath) and his
    ministry is all about feeling great about being oppressed, because it
    means you'll win the big prize when you're dead. We're all immortal!
    Hooray! When you die, you get to live forever! Hooray! So long as you
    do what you're told to do by everyone on Earth (including your priests
    and cult leaders, of course) you never have to think at all about
    anything, ever. It's all taken care of.


    Well, what idiot wandering desperately through the desert back in
    those times of Roman OPPRESSION and slavery wouldn't want to hear that
    they are blessed for being oppressed and that they will live in
    splendor and wonder after they are brutally murdered by the State for
    breathing wrong on a Centurion or their master and that they never
    have to do anything at all for any of this blessing, other than to
    just believe that some guy named Jesus died for their sins! Hell they
    don't even have to pay for their sins! It's all been taken care of for
    them so just continue to live in drudgery and pretend it's paradise in
    your mind until the point of the blade chops your worthless head off,
    all right little plebian? Tote that barge and lift that bail and sing
    hosannah all you want, so long as you never rise up against your
    oppressors like the Jews do and you'll be just fine.


    That's what Paul was pushing and he wasn't even pushing it to the
    people who allegedly knew of Jesus the best; the Jewish people in and
    around Jerusalem! Why? Oh, um, that's uh, that's because,
    um.....they're the ones who killed him! Yeah, that's it! I'm preaching
    to you non-Jews about the Jewish messiah, um, because, those Jews--
    well, you all know what problems they are! Hell, I was even one of
    them myself! "They" killed their own Messiah! "They" cast us all out!
    "They," "they," "they!" But what "they" didn't understand is that the
    power of "their" God--the power that has kept the Jewish people strong
    for thousands of years--can be had by all of us, through Jesus! For
    this one time only offer of just $19.95, you too can have the power of
    the One True God without having to cut anything off your -------! Or
    keeping glatt kosher; or sacrificing your unblemished livestock or
    growing grain; or keeping any of the orthodox laws holy; or even
    worshipping on Friday sundown to Saturday sundown or any of that silly
    nonsense! Why, you can keep your own pagan holidays, too! Hell, you
    can even keep your pantheistic beliefs, because the One True God is
    actually three gods in one! The only requirement is that you believe
    what I am telling you and nobody else.
    Last edited by theman09; 29th November 2010 at 16:32.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    The House of Ishmael: A history Of The Jews In Muslim Land, By Martin Gilbert
    by Robert Irwin

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/12/uk-...e-independent/

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    2000 years of christian history, Jesus words and Pauls curses didn't contribute to anti-semiticism?

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    From table of contents in Bart D ehrman's book FORGED

    Chapter about
    FORGERIES in conflicts with Jews and Pagans

    chapter 5 page 143

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    "The Cross is a most despicable emblem, a symbol of death and genocide
    to the Jews.


    As I have read the writings of Josephus I am beginning to find it
    EXTREMELY difficult to even think of the MENTAL anguish and UTTER
    despair of the Jews as they observed Jesus believers with an EMBLEM
    that was used to EXTERMINATE Jews.


    It is MIND SHATTERING.


    Could a religion today use the EMBLEM of a NOOSE and asked people to
    worship in a CHURCH with a NOOSE?


    This is Josephus on the SHEER HORROR of the CROSS.


    Wars of the Jews 5.11.2.
    Quote:

    ... So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews,
    nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after
    another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so
    great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for
    the bodies. (19)....

    I don't want to see another CROSS it is JUST to painful.


    Why was a most HORRENDOUS SYMBOL of DEATH and Genocide to the Jews
    used in the Christian Church?





    Did Jews and Gentiles See The Same Thing When They Looked Up At The
    Cross?




    It's a basic question which I think never gets asked enough - was the
    Cross really meant to be a welcoming sight for Jews and Samaritans? If
    you're a modern Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist the Cross is
    so prevalent in contemporary culture that it is difficult to imagine
    looking at it a new set of eyes.


    Yet that's the problem.


    Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't
    see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have
    such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the
    characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic
    traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to
    their ancestors in the first century period.


    But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally
    put the pieces together regarding Christian origins. "


    The central question is - when and why did the ancients start
    venerating the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course
    the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared
    crucified' on one of these things or that Paul was the 'first
    theologian' of Christianity who 'invented' a religious doctrine of
    crucifixion.


    On some level the answer people like this are giving you is that 'God'
    gave us the religion of the Cross.


    To me this appeal to a bat kol always seems like a cop out. When you
    read Josephus's account of the Jewish War and its description of the
    manner in which crosses were used to terrify the rebellious Jews
    hiding behind the walls of Jerusalem one wonders whether God was
    fulfilling Daniel's prophesy by means of this 'abomination' or the
    κοσμοκράτωρ (cosmocrator) with some skillful help from a certain
    someone who knew "all customs and questions which are among the
    Jews." (Acts 26:3)
    the Jews were told that thier God was nailed to a cross. wouldn't that be disgusting news to an occupied people back than?





    Katz will say that the words here are the words of the Jews themselves, it is not the opinion of the Bible itself, yet this shows how INCOMPETENT his Bible is. Why wouldn't Matthew clarify after writing this, that we must remember not all Jews were like this, and we shouldn't blame every Jew for Jesus' death because some Jews said his blood on our hands. Matthew, Mark, Luke, none of them make any clarification. Didn't they know that such a verse would cause major anti-semitism against the Jewish race? Weren't they under the Holy Spirit? Wasn't the Holy Spirit smart enough to clarify such a remark as to make sure it can't be used as an excuse to be used against the entire Jewish people? Obviously not, since Jews to this day suffer from this verse!
    Last edited by Kamran; 26th April 2011 at 17:21.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    "The purpose of the "Pilate Gospels"
    By exonerating Pilate in the death of Jesus, the accounts make the Jews, not just thier leaders, bear all the guilt. The more innocent Pilate is, the more culpable are the Jews. According to some of the legends, Pilate is so innocent that he becomes a devoted believer and follower of Christ. God is therefore angry with the Jews and punishes them for thier crimes against the Son of God.

    These writings were forged in a period that saw heightened animosities between Christians and Jews. Christians realized there would be no rapprochement with the Jews and there was little chance that most Jews would ever come to see the "truth" about Jesus, that he was the messiah of God, not just a lowly crucified criminal. This "truth" then, is what prompted these Christian "false writings." That is to say, a number of Christian authours chose to tell the truth about the divine Christ and about his wicked enemies the Jews, by forging documents claiming to be by people they weren't. Chrisitian readers of these documents accepted them at face value as real reports from the time, instead of what they were , forgeries from later periods. The authours intended to deceive thier readers, and thier readers were all too easily deceived. "
    forged

    page 159
    Last edited by Kamran; 3rd May 2011 at 23:16.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamran View Post
    "The purpose of the "Pilate Gospels"

    By exonerating Pilate in the death of Jesus, the accounts make the Jews, not just thier leaders, bear all the guilt. The more innocent Pilate is, the more culpable are the Jews. According to some of the legends, Pilate is so innocent that he becomes a devoted believer and follower of Christ. God is therefore angry with the Jews and punishes them for thier crimes against the Son of God.

    These writings were forged in a period that saw heightened animosities between Christians and Jews. Christians realized there would be no rapprochement with the Jews and there was little chance that most Jews would ever come to see the "truth" about Jesus, that he was the messiah of God, not just a lowly crucified criminal. This "truth" then, is what prompted these Christian "false writings." That is to say, a number of Christian authours chose to tell the truth about the divine Christ and about his wicked enemies the Jews, by forging documents claiming to be by people they weren't. Chrisitian readers of these documents accepted them at face value as real reports from the time, instead of what they were , forgeries from later periods. The authours intended to deceive thier readers, and thier readers were all too easily deceived. "
    Can you be a little more specific about 'these writings', why not name them? But the truth is that we are all implicated in the death of Jesus and you may know the Spiritual with the line "where you there when the crucified my Lord" - we yes the answer is we were there.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    ignoring the jibberish in post 13 we proceed to post 15
    Last edited by Kamran; 3rd May 2011 at 23:12.

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: ... not even christianity maligns jews as much as islam

    on pages 174-175 ehrman talks about UNKNWON christians taking over jewish FORGERIES of the sibylline oracles and christianizing them . he says the oracles were modified by the christian forgers and in them inserted thier own prophecies . the christian forgers tried to fool the readers into believing that prophetess sibyl made prediction about the crucified saviour god .

    about the jews, the forger put into sibyl's mouth the following

    ISRAEL , with abominable lips and poisonous spittings will give this man blows, ehrman goes onto say that the forger put into sybyl's mouth ... eventual DESTRUCTION of "the Hebrews " for the evil deed they performed against crist"


    ehrman's conclusion on 176

    " As you might imagine, pagans intent attacking Christians knew full well that these oracular "predictions" of the coming of Christ, his activities on earth, his rejection by the Jews, and his vindication were not original to an ancient Sibyl, but had been inserted into these writings or created whole cloth by Christian authors. This is one instance in which unknown forgers among the Christians were rightly suspected."
    Last edited by Kamran; 3rd May 2011 at 21:55.

Similar Threads

  1. Can Islam and Christianity really coexist?
    By Calov in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 28th September 2010, 00:24
  2. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 14th August 2010, 20:53
  3. Why is Islam better than Christianity, if so?
    By kapadokya@ymail.com in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 9th September 2008, 14:21
  4. Prayer in Islam and Christianity
    By JoeChristian in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 20th October 2004, 18:11
  5. Judaism, Christianity, Islam
    By jonastheprophet in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th December 2003, 05:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •