Jesus--The Joy (and Despair) of Man's Desiring

[Jagella]

Needless to say, the figure of Jesus in the gospel tale has been controversial since its inception. According to his story, he was a god sent from heaven who took on the form of a lowly Jewish peasant. Jesus gradually emerged from this humble social status performing magical acts to demonstrate that he was either divine or quasi-divine. He was on a mission from God to establish God's kingdom and save all those who repent and believe what he said. All others would suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire. Jesus then separated all of us into the "sheep" and the "goats," respectively. There is no middle ground. You are "with him or against him."

This bifurcation of humankind is with us to this day. Some of us embrace the basic teachings of the gospel hoping that a real Jesus can make our immortality real. All others may simply disregard the whole idea of Jesus' salvation, but many of us fight against the idea finding it to be horrible and repugnant. So it appears to me that if there is any truth behind the gospel tale, our joy or despair over the idea of a Jesus saving and condemning the world may blind us to that truth. If we dearly want Jesus to be real, then we will seek any evidence for him while disregarding any evidence against him. Others no doubt are biased in the opposite direction; if we find the gospel tale to be objectionable, then we are much more likely to believe he wasn't the Jesus of the gospels while rejecting any evidence for his "reality."

So yes, I think the figure of Jesus sways our conclusions about him. Although such bias may be an inevitable facet of the human psyche, I think it can be significantly overcome by simply recognizing that we have a bias toward or against the doctrines of Christianity. Once we see that bias for what it is, then we are free to proceed in setting it aside and open our minds to whatever truth there is about Jesus.

Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?

[tam]

Peace to you Jaqella,

[Replying to post 70 by Jagella]

I started this dialogue with you assuming that you are a Christian. Later you made some comments that led me to believe that you are not what is normally thought of as a Christian. Those comments confused me, and I began to wonder what your beliefs are. In order to sensibly scrutinize your posted comments, I need to know the beliefs behind those comments. That's why I asked if you are a Christian.

So now you know. May I ask why we have continued on this tangent, instead of picking up our conversation where it left off?



I'm not sure there is anything else for me to comment upon. I don't feel like there is much point in both of us continuing to say, 'but I backed up my position'. I feel like we can let those posts speak for themselves.



Oh, except for this point (though perhaps it deserves a thread of its own):

The New Testament is very antisemitic, for one thing. The entire gospel of John, for example, repeatedly denounces "the Jews" making them out to be evil villains. Martin Luther was inspired by the New Testament to call for persecution of the Jews.

The gospel of "John" was written by a Jew. Most of the NT is written by Jews. Martin Luther, it seems, might have persecuted Jews after he could not win them over to "Christianity".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Je ... Their_Lies


Not knowing much about the man, myself, I could not say. I can say that He did not persecute Jews on any command from Christ.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."


“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back."



Tell me, where in His teachings did Christ ever teach His followers to DO the persecuting?


Tell me where, even in the NT, that His apostles ever taught OR DID this persecuting?


Christ's own example of what He DID do ... after BEING persecuted (and executed) and calling down NO curse upon anyone... was in fact to ask His Father to forgive them (who did these things to Him).


**

Neither Martin Luther nor the RCC from which he left has Christ (or even the NT) to blame for their persecutions of other people, no matter who those people are.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you EJ,

[Replying to post 65 by Elijah John]

Having said that, yes, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Do you concede the possibility that you could be wrong, the New Testament wrong on this matter, the Church or the Watch Tower Society be wrong?

I am not JW, of course, but I concede those things.


But you are suggesting much more than that.


You are suggesting that Jaheshua is wrong.

Could be. If Yahshua actually said this, than he was plainly wrong. He did not return in the "glory of his Father, with his angels, repaying eveyone for what they have done". In the lifetime of his own apostles. They all tasted death, but still, Christ had not returned as described. (Matthew 16.27,28)

So lets look at what the passage actually says:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.� Matthew 16:28


John (of Patmos) did not taste death until he did see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. John was taken in the spirit to the Lord's Day (Rev 1:10) and saw Christ coming in His Kingdom. He saw many other things as well. But he was there in the spirit on that day to see it happen.


So John (of Patmos) is at least one person who did not taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.


Remember that Christ also said that Abraham had seen His day. He obviously did not mean that He had returned a few thousand years ago, before Abraham died:


"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my Day; he saw it and was glad." John 8:56






Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 72 by tam]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

Oh, except for this point (though perhaps it deserves a thread of its own):

The New Testament is very antisemitic, for one thing. The entire gospel of John, for example, repeatedly denounces "the Jews" making them out to be evil villains. Martin Luther was inspired by the New Testament to call for persecution of the Jews.

The gospel of "John" was written by a Jew. Most of the NT is written by Jews. Martin Luther, it seems, might have persecuted Jews after he could not win them over to "Christianity".

Actually, scholars debate who wrote John. The identity of the author is essentially unknown.

In any case, even if the author is known to be a Jew, and I think he probably was a Jew, his ethnicity in no way precludes his being anti-Jewish. The emerging Christian religion was hostile toward many Jews because they failed to convert to the new religion. That hostility developed into what we today see as antisemitism. Many Jewish scholars have been kept busy writing about how hostility toward Jews originated in the New Testament. For example, on page X of The Christian Problem by Jewish rabbi and scholar Stuart E. Rosenberg we read:

It is through Paul, I should argue, that the line must be traced from the first century of the Christian era to the death camps of Europe's Jews. For Paul was the paganizing founder of Christian anti-Jewish suppressionism. He radically betrayed Judaism and his own people.

Note that Rosenberg accuses Paul of betraying his own people, the Jews. So any Jew including Paul or John can be blamed for antisemitism.

Another scholar, Hector Avalos, also recognizes the antisemitism in the New Testament although he maintains that much of the hostility toward Jews in those documents has been smoothed-over by scholars who deliberately mistranslate them to hide what they really say. Avalos writes on page 56 of The End of Biblical Studies:

...one of the methods used to atone for a long Christian history of anti-Judaism centers on hiding the anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament.

So Tam, it is wise to take care how much faith we place in modern translations of the Bible considering that we rely on the way those documents have been translated.

I have documented the antisemitism that has its roots in the New Testament. In Jesus: Human, Hoax, or God? I write:

If the gospels are merely literature created by some Jews, then tragically the whole Jewish people paid dearly for that literature. The Jews are portayed in the New Testament as those who engineered the execution of Jesus. Many centuries of anti-Semitism has resulted from this portrayal of the Jews as “Christ killers.� Lloyd Graham writes:

Christs belong to mythology and the wiser Jews knew it. Then let's hear no more the cry of “Christ-killers�; the Jews did not kill Christ; they created him.

An example of the gospels libeling the Jews as these “Christ killers� is to be found in Matthew 27:24-25:

So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.� Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!�

It should be obvious to any impartial observer that it is very unlikely that any Jews would curse not only themselves but their children this way. What we are reading in passages like Matthew 27:24-25 is not history but anti-Semitic propaganda. The entire gospel of John has been cited as laying the seed for the church's age-old practice of persecuting Jews. Groups of people who are entirely evil do not exist in the real world but only in the minds of those who hate them. Rather than writing a fair and accurate account of such groups, their enemies create works of fiction that are not meant to be the history of these groups but propaganda that incites violence and hostility.

Martin Luther, it seems, might have persecuted Jews after he could not win them over to "Christianity".

Not knowing much about the man, myself, I could not say. I can say that He did not persecute Jews on any command from Christ.

Tam, I have already explained that we don't need any explicit "command from Christ" to persecute Jews or engage in other acts of hate to know that there's much anti-semitism in the New Testament. The inflammatory nature of what's said in the New Testament against the Jews portraying them as "Christ killers" is quite adequate to fan the flames of bigotry. Martin Luther knew what he was doing when he based his hatred for Jews in his Christian beliefs. He may have read the following tirade on the part of Jesus against the "Jews." John 8:44:

You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus--what a sweet and loving guy he was, eh Tam?

[tam]

Peace to you Jaqella,

[Replying to post 72 by tam]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

Oh, except for this point (though perhaps it deserves a thread of its own):

The New Testament is very antisemitic, for one thing. The entire gospel of John, for example, repeatedly denounces "the Jews" making them out to be evil villains. Martin Luther was inspired by the New Testament to call for persecution of the Jews.

The gospel of "John" was written by a Jew. Most of the NT is written by Jews. Martin Luther, it seems, might have persecuted Jews after he could not win them over to "Christianity".

Actually, scholars debate who wrote John. The identity of the author is essentially unknown.

Scholars debate everything.

People will use one scholar to prop up their ideas on the right, and others will use another scholar to prop up their ideas on the left.


In this case, the author of "John" might not literally give his name, but he does identify himself.


Do scholars have evidence to overturn that? No, they do not.

In any case, even if the author is known to be a Jew, and I think he probably was a Jew, his ethnicity in no way precludes his being anti-Jewish.

Well, we'd at least need some evidence of it first.

The emerging Christian religion was hostile toward many Jews because they failed to convert to the new religion.

When you say 'emerging Christian religion' at what point in time are you speaking of?

Because the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) would have had a reason to feel at least some animosity toward those Jews persecuting them. I am not saying that the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) did feel that way mind you... or that they did not check their hearts and forgive those who were persecuting them... because again, Christ said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. But the Jews (not all, obviously, since the earliest Christians were ALL Jews) were persecuting them, putting them out of the synagogue, imprisoning them, etc.

That hostility developed into what we today see as antisemitism.

Opinion noted.

Many Jewish scholars have been kept busy writing about how hostility toward Jews originated in the New Testament. For example, on page X of The Christian Problem by Jewish rabbi and scholar Stuart E. Rosenberg we read:

It is through Paul, I should argue, that the line must be traced from the first century of the Christian era to the death camps of Europe's Jews. For Paul was the paganizing founder of Christian anti-Jewish suppressionism. He radically betrayed Judaism and his own people.

Note that Rosenberg accuses Paul of betraying his own people, the Jews. So any Jew including Paul or John can be blamed for antisemitism.

You don't see a problem with that quote? That because Paul became a Christian, no longer following the religious tradition that other Jews remained in, he is accused of betraying Judaism and his own people? Even though the earliest Christians WERE his own people. Jews and Samaritans and later also Gentiles.

You don't think THAT attitude being displayed is a problem?

That is exactly what some sects in Christendom feel and do with regard to those who leave them. Or in Islam. Or in Judaism still. Or Hinduism.

I mean, he might as well be talking about you Jaqella. You left your previous religion and now you argue against it. I guess that must mean that you betrayed your religion and your people. Someday someone might say that you (and others who do as you do) are responsible for the persecution that comes against religious people or people of faith (including Christians).

You think atheists and/or anti-theists are not laying down a foundation that could one day be used for the persecution of anyone who has religion or faith?



**


And why don't you take a read of Romans 11. I could copy it all out here if you like. In it, Paul says that all Israel will be saved. He says that Israel has experienced a hardening (in part) until the full number of the Gentiles comes in. He says that the Gentiles should not become arrogant, or think that they are better than the Jews. He says that he loves his people (in Romans 9 and 10 as well)

Another scholar, Hector Avalos, also recognizes the antisemitism in the New Testament although he maintains that much of the hostility toward Jews in those documents has been smoothed-over by scholars who deliberately mistranslate them to hide what they really say. Avalos writes on page 56 of The End of Biblical Studies:

...one of the methods used to atone for a long Christian history of anti-Judaism centers on hiding the anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament.

So Tam, it is wise to take care how much faith we place in modern translations of the Bible considering that we rely on the way those documents have been translated.

Why, just because Hector Avalos says so? Do we have any examples?

Martin Luther, it seems, might have persecuted Jews after he could not win them over to "Christianity".

Not knowing much about the man, myself, I could not say. I can say that He did not persecute Jews on any command from Christ.

Tam, I have already explained that we don't need any explicit "command from Christ" to persecute Jews or engage in other acts of hate to know that there's much anti-semitism in the New Testament. The inflammatory nature of what's said in the New Testament against the Jews portraying them as "Christ killers" is quite adequate to fan the flames of bigotry. Martin Luther knew what he was doing when he based his hatred for Jews in his Christian beliefs. He may have read the following tirade on the part of Jesus against the "Jews." John 8:44:

You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus--what a sweet and loving guy he was, eh Tam?

He just spoke the truth. They did murder Him, hating him without reason. They lied about Him. I mean, just in that passage, they picked up stones to stone him at the end of his talk.

People just prefer to blame the person who speaks the truth to them. Rather than take a good look at themselves, turn around and repent.



I do wonder if these same scholars consider the OT to be antisemetic because Israel is rebuked, called a stiff-necked and obstinate people, unfaithful, etc? Or if they consider the prophets (including Moses) to be antisemetic for rebuking them and calling them such things?


Or just Christ and the authors of the NT?



Peace again to you Jaqella,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 74 by tam]

Scholars debate everything.

People will use one scholar to prop up their ideas on the right, and others will use another scholar to prop up their ideas on the left.

I see you dismiss the work of Bible scholars. I too do not always agree with some of the conclusions Bible scholars have come to, but I don't just dismiss those conclusions because I don't like those conclusions. I have what I think are good reasons to come to different conclusions than they might come to, and I am able and willing to state what those reasons are. In the context of this discussion, I have no reason to disagree with Hector Avalos when he says that some translators have covered up the antisemitism in the New Testament. Heck, I don't even need to know that some antisemitism has been hidden by scholars because the English Bible translations have a lot of antisemitism that I can read for myself!

When you say 'emerging Christian religion' at what point in time are you speaking of?

I'd say that bitterness toward Jews on the part of Christians started in the second half of the first century with Paul's epistles.

Because the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) would have had a reason to feel at least some animosity toward those Jews persecuting them. I am not saying that the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) did feel that way mind you... or that they did not check their hearts and forgive those who were persecuting them... because again, Christ said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. But the Jews (not all, obviously, since the earliest Christians were ALL Jews) were persecuting them, putting them out of the synagogue, imprisoning them, etc.

One problem with what you're saying here is that you are relying on what Christians said about Jews. If we were reading what Jews said about Christians, then the story would no doubt be quite different.

Another problem is that there is no good motive for the Jews to persecute Christians. There were plenty of new religious groups at that time with new ideas. Why didn't the Jews go after them too? The Jews apparently had nothing better to do than to run around persecuting a fringe cult. And it's truly amazing that this armed persecution went on in full view of the Romans who evidently just let it go.

You don't see a problem with that quote? That because Paul became a Christian, no longer following the religious tradition that other Jews remained in, he is accused of betraying Judaism and his own people?

I think that Rosenberg sees Paul as betraying the Jews because what Paul taught led to persecution of the Jews.

I mean, he might as well be talking about you Jaqella. You left your previous religion and now you argue against it. I guess that must mean that you betrayed your religion and your people. Someday someone might say that you (and others who do as you do) are responsible for the persecution that comes against religious people or people of faith (including Christians).

I don't say anything that can lead to persecution of the group I used to belong to. That's the difference between Paul and me.

You think atheists and/or anti-theists are not laying down a foundation that could one day be used for the persecution of anyone who has religion or faith?

I hope not. That's why I have told other atheists that as we grow in numbers and influence, we need a sense of social responsibility respecting the rights of all people. If Christians had thought that way, then I think there would have been a loot less trouble.

And why don't you take a read of Romans 11. I could copy it all out here if you like. In it, Paul says that all Israel will be saved.

I have read that. Paul is contradicting most of his teaching there by claiming that all of Israel would be saved. If you can figure out the contradiction, then please post it.

Why, just because Hector Avalos says so? Do we have any examples?

One example of Biblical whitewashing Avalos cites is the TNIV (Today's New International Version) translation of Acts 13:50. In this passage it is said that the "Jewish leaders" incited opposition against Paul and Barnabas. The word should be "Jews" rather than "Jewish leaders."

He just spoke the truth. They did murder Him, hating him without reason. They lied about Him. I mean, just in that passage, they picked up stones to stone him at the end of his talk.

Tam, are you saying that "the Jews" murdered Christ?

People just prefer to blame the person who speaks the truth to them. Rather than take a good look at themselves, turn around and repent.

People also tend to get upset when they are reviled and slandered.

I do wonder if these same scholars consider the OT to be antisemetic because Israel is rebuked, called a stiff-necked and obstinate people, unfaithful, etc? Or if they consider the prophets (including Moses) to be antisemetic for rebuking them and calling them such things?

That's a very interesting observation. In the Old Testament many Jews are denounced for not believing and obeying their leaders. The writers of the New Testament used the Jewish scriptures to smear the Jews claiming that they "rejected" Christ and therefore forfeited their status as God's chosen people.

Religion is its own worst enemy.

[tam]

Peace to you Jaqella,

[Replying to post 74 by tam]

Scholars debate everything.

People will use one scholar to prop up their ideas on the right, and others will use another scholar to prop up their ideas on the left.

I see you dismiss the work of Bible scholars. I too do not always agree with some of the conclusions Bible scholars have come to, but I don't just dismiss those conclusions because I don't like those conclusions.

Neither do I. But neither do I put stock in someone's opinion (or conclusion) just because they are scholars.

I have what I think are good reasons to come to different conclusions than they might come to, and I am able and willing to state what those reasons are. In the context of this discussion, I have no reason to disagree with Hector Avalos when he says that some translators have covered up the antisemitism in the New Testament. Heck, I don't even need to know that some antisemitism has been hidden by scholars because the English Bible translations have a lot of antisemitism that I can read for myself!

I have listed my reasons as well. I simply am unwilling to accept what someone says simply because they are a scholar. I need to examine what it is that they said. The content.

Please define antisemitism so I can understand exactly what you are referring to.

When you say 'emerging Christian religion' at what point in time are you speaking of?

I'd say that bitterness toward Jews on the part of Christians started in the second half of the first century with Paul's epistles.

What exactly from his letters do you think bred this bitterness? Why do you insist that it started with his letters and not from the persecution they were experiencing? And what in his letters do you think gave people permission to persecute Jews later... keeping in mind that these ones are supposed to be listening to Christ, and Paul said as much?

Because the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) would have had a reason to feel at least some animosity toward those Jews persecuting them. I am not saying that the earliest Christians (who were themselves Jews) did feel that way mind you... or that they did not check their hearts and forgive those who were persecuting them... because again, Christ said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. But the Jews (not all, obviously, since the earliest Christians were ALL Jews) were persecuting them, putting them out of the synagogue, imprisoning them, etc.

One problem with what you're saying here is that you are relying on what Christians said about Jews. If we were reading what Jews said about Christians, then the story would no doubt be quite different.

You realize that all of those Christians were also Jews, right?

Perhaps the reason we do not have accounts of the early Jewish Christians persecution of non-Christian Jews... is because it never happened?

Another problem is that there is no good motive for the Jews to persecute Christians.

I agree that the motive is not good (ie, from love; without sin); but some Muslim sects persecute other muslims for leaving their religion (especially if they speak against that religion after having left). Sects in Christendom have done the same. Calling those who leave or who believe differently than the previous group 'heretics' or 'apostates'. Kicking them out, shunning them, sometimes imprisoning or even executing them (depending upon the laws of the land). Israel did the same. So I don't see why it is so hard to believe that the religious leaders would order these so-called apostates be kicked out of the synagogues, or persecuted, imprisoned, put on trial, etc.

There were plenty of new religious groups at that time with new ideas. Why didn't the Jews go after them too? The Jews apparently had nothing better to do than to run around persecuting a fringe cult. And it's truly amazing that this armed persecution went on in full view of the Romans who evidently just let it go.

Why would the Romans have cared about some internal Jewish matter? I mean, how else would they have seen this? Jews who rejected Christ against Jews who accepted Christ. It's not like the Jewish Christians were fighting the non-Christian Jews in the street. They were in hiding from those Jews who were persecuting them.



Yes, "Christendom" did the persecuting later, and that was terribly wrong obviously; it is against love (so it is against the law of God) and it is also against Christ, the one they claimed to follow.

But that is not what was happening here at the start.

You don't see a problem with that quote? That because Paul became a Christian, no longer following the religious tradition that other Jews remained in, he is accused of betraying Judaism and his own people?

I think that Rosenberg sees Paul as betraying the Jews because what Paul taught led to persecution of the Jews.

It is yet to be established that what Paul taught led to the persecution of the Jews.


I see no reason that someone could not misuse and twist Paul's words, to cause harm (and to be fair, his earlier mistaken teaching about shunning the sinner has led religion - who follow Paul's words rather than Christ's words - to teach that shunning is both okay and necessary). But I mean, if the RCC can twist or ignore or misuse the words of Christ, in order to persecute and execute and imprison and torture people (Jews or otherwise)- and at the same time claim to be doing so in the name of Christ or God - then people can twist anything, Jaqella.

Because those actions were 100% in the wrong, and completely against the teachings of Christ - both in word and in deed.


But as for the Romans, why would they have interfered in an internal religious conflict?

Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

I mean, he might as well be talking about you Jaqella. You left your previous religion and now you argue against it. I guess that must mean that you betrayed your religion and your people. Someday someone might say that you (and others who do as you do) are responsible for the persecution that comes against religious people or people of faith (including Christians).

I don't say anything that can lead to persecution of the group I used to belong to. That's the difference between Paul and me.

You don't speak against Christianity or highlight the harm it causes?

What did Paul say that led to the persecution of the former religion he belonged to?

You think atheists and/or anti-theists are not laying down a foundation that could one day be used for the persecution of anyone who has religion or faith?

I hope not. That's why I have told other atheists that as we grow in numbers and influence, we need a sense of social responsibility respecting the rights of all people. If Christians had thought that way, then I think there would have been a loot less trouble.

I agree.

But atheists and anti-theists are not united in what you have said here.

And why don't you take a read of Romans 11. I could copy it all out here if you like. In it, Paul says that all Israel will be saved.

I have read that. Paul is contradicting most of his teaching there by claiming that all of Israel would be saved. If you can figure out the contradiction, then please post it.

Since you think he is contradicting the rest of his teaching, could you please post that contradiction and examples of it?

Why, just because Hector Avalos says so? Do we have any examples?

One example of Biblical whitewashing Avalos cites is the TNIV (Today's New International Version) translation of Acts 13:50. In this passage it is said that the "Jewish leaders" incited opposition against Paul and Barnabas. The word should be "Jews" rather than "Jewish leaders."

I have the NIV (the older translation). It was given to me and it is easy to read. I have found, however, that it likes to take a few liberties in translation.


That being said, no other translation that I looked up has 'Jewish Leaders' over "Jews". So I don't see how that can qualify as a whitewash, especially when the original language is there for anyone to see.


"Jews" obviously also does not mean ALL Jews, so I'm not sure how that could be considered antisemitism. As previously stated, the ones being persecuted in the above WERE themselves Jews. And then there would have been the Jews that might not have accepted Christ, but who also did not persecute Christians. (He who is not against you is for you)

He just spoke the truth. They did murder Him, hating him without reason. They lied about Him. I mean, just in that passage, they picked up stones to stone him at the end of his talk.

Tam, are you saying that "the Jews" murdered Christ?

All Jews? Of course not.


But it was Jews who murdered Him, who brought false witnesses against Him, who lied about Him. The high priest and other priests and Pharisees, in particular, since they rejected Him and handed Him over to be executed.

Unless you think that the person who hires a hitman is not himself responsible for the hit?

People just prefer to blame the person who speaks the truth to them. Rather than take a good look at themselves, turn around and repent.

People also tend to get upset when they are reviled and slandered.

True. But what is the slander?

I do wonder if these same scholars consider the OT to be antisemetic because Israel is rebuked, called a stiff-necked and obstinate people, unfaithful, etc? Or if they consider the prophets (including Moses) to be antisemetic for rebuking them and calling them such things?

That's a very interesting observation. In the Old Testament many Jews are denounced for not believing and obeying their leaders. The writers of the New Testament used the Jewish scriptures to smear the Jews claiming that they "rejected" Christ and therefore forfeited their status as God's chosen people.

Yes, I think it is interesting as well that the same people who say the NT authors are antisemitic, can't really do that unless they want to also claim that the older prophets of Israel were also antisemitic.


In the OT it is also the religious leaders who are rebuked because they misled the people and cared only for themselves, and not the flock, and because they lied. (unless when you say leader you mean Moses and the prophets)

Ezekiel 34.

Also Jeremiah 5:30, 31

An appalling and horrible thing Has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And My people love it so!



As well, the writers of the NT were also Jews; so those scriptures would also have belonged to them, yes?


Perhaps you will find the following interesting as well: because the OT scriptures are not entirely Jewish scriptures. They are the scriptures given to Israel, of which the Jews make up two portions (descended from the Kingdom of Judah). The Samaritans at that time were also Israel, descended from the Kingdom of Israel - the other ten tribes. Gentiles converted to them as well after the Assyrians conquered and resettled the northern Kingdom with some of their own people. But there were Israelites in the land as well, and the Samaritans were descended from these (albeit rejected by the Jews, but not rejected by Christ, who knew them also as Israel, which is why He could go to the Samaritans even though He was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, at least at the start).



Regardless, the writers of the NT were Jewish (including Paul), so those scriptures were just as much theirs.

Religion is its own worst enemy.

Not really gonna argue with you there. Which is why I think it should not be so hard for you to accept that the Jews (who rejected Christ) persecuted the Jews (who followed Christ).




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 76 by tam]

I see you dismiss the work of Bible scholars. I too do not always agree with some of the conclusions Bible scholars have come to, but I don't just dismiss those conclusions because I don't like those conclusions.

Neither do I. But neither do I put stock in someone's opinion (or conclusion) just because they are scholars.

Well, for one thing, I respect higher education and those who have demonstrated knowledge and expertise to the satisfaction of accredited schools. Avalos has demonstrated expertise in Biblical studies, and that's why he was awarded with the degrees he holds. So to cite his work does say something for my position if he and I agree, and we do agree that there is antisemitism in the New Testament.

Also, you seem to be confused over what I am arguing. I'm not saying that we should accept the word of scholars "just because they are scholars." I think Avalos is right because what he maintains about antisemitism is in agreement with other evidence that I know of. I cited Avalos because he can read the Greek that the English translation(s) of the New Testament are based on. I cannot yet read New-Testament Greek, so I rely on his ability to do so.

Please define antisemitism so I can understand exactly what you are referring to.

Among other things, antisemitism is to broad-brush Jews as being evil in some way. Antisemitism is anything said or done that results in harm to Jews because of that broad-brushing.

I'd say that bitterness toward Jews on the part of Christians started in the second half of the first century with Paul's epistles.

What exactly from his letters do you think bred this bitterness? Why do you insist that it started with his letters and not from the persecution they were experiencing? And what in his letters do you think gave people permission to persecute Jews later... keeping in mind that these ones are supposed to be listening to Christ, and Paul said as much?

Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book:

Paul explains in Romans 11:11-24 that the “stumbling� on the part of Israel in rejecting Jesus has made salvation available to the gentiles. This favored status on the part of the saved gentiles has made Israel jealous, as Paul sees it. The rejection of Jesus on the part of Israel is a blessing in disguise because when the Jews do accept salvation through Jesus, the victory will be that much more amazing.

So here Paul is broad-brushing "Israel" as having God's favored status stripped from them and given to the gentiles. The Jews can only get that status back if they convert to Christianity. Rhetoric like this has led to persecution of the Jews by many Christians who see the Jews as being in rebellion against God.

You realize that all of those Christians were also Jews, right?

The very first Christians were probably mostly Jews, but that situation soon changed with the many gentile concerts to Christianity.

Perhaps the reason we do not have accounts of the early Jewish Christians persecution of non-Christian Jews... is because it never happened?

My answer depends on what you mean by "early." Persecution of the "non-Christian Jews" by Christians goes back at least a far as the middle ages. When Christianity got started, it was probably too weak to persecute anybody.

[tam]

Peace to you Jaqella,

Rhetoric like this has led to persecution of the Jews by many Christians who see the Jews as being in rebellion against God.

Just claiming that rhetoric "like this" led to the persecution of the Jews by many Christians, does not make it so.


Especially when considering that in these VERY passages, Paul speaks of his love for his brothers, the Jews; he speaks of God desiring to have mercy upon all - gentiles and Jew alike; he says that all Israel will be saved; and he warns the gentiles against becoming conceited.

Where is there ANY encouragement in ANY of this for persecution against the Jews? Couple what Paul has said with what Christ has said, teaching in word and deed (I won't repeat, it is all there in previous exchanges between us), and how does anyone who is a Christian justify persecution of Jews (or anyone else for that matter)?

You realize that all of those Christians were also Jews, right?

The very first Christians were probably mostly Jews, but that situation soon changed with the many gentile concerts to Christianity.

We were speaking about those first Christians who reported the persecution from the Jews. Those first Christians would also have been Jews.

Perhaps the reason we do not have accounts of the early Jewish Christians persecution of non-Christian Jews... is because it never happened?

My answer depends on what you mean by "early." Persecution of the "non-Christian Jews" by Christians goes back at least a far as the middle ages. When Christianity got started, it was probably too weak to persecute anybody.

[/quote]

By 'early' here, I mean first (the Jewish Christians).


So you think that the reason they did not persecute the non-Christian Jews is because they were too weak (too small in number) to do so; and not because to do so would have gone against the teachings and commands of their Lord, the Messiah?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 78 by tam]

Maybe we should back up here a bit. I could use some clarifications from you. Do you recognize that antisemitism exists? If so, then how did it get started, and who started it?

[tam]

Peace to you Jaqella,

[Replying to post 78 by tam]

Maybe we should back up here a bit. I could use some clarifications from you. Do you recognize that antisemitism exists?

Yes.

If so, then how did it get started, and who started it?

We are talking about your claim of how it got started and who started it. Not mine. I made no such claims.



Peace again to you!