The Anti-Semitism of the New Testament

The history of anti-Semitism in the Christian church is a long, sad story. Ironically, this faith which began as a sect within Judaism has been responsible for many more atrocities against the Jewish people than any of their other enemies.

For centuries, Christian Europe reviled Jewish believers as Christ-killers, and Jews were accused of ludicrous crimes like “host nailing” (stealing consecrated communion wafers and driving nails through them, to crucify Jesus anew) or draining the blood of Christian children to bake in matzoh. Throughout the Middle Ages, thousands of Jews were tried and executed, or simply murdered by mobs, after wild accusations such as these incited Christian communities to frenzy. One of the most notable Christian anti-Semites was Martin Luther, who wrote a book titled On the Jews and Their Lies which argued that Judaism should be outlawed, synagogues should be burned down and Jews should be enslaved for forced labor.

At the root of all this anti-Semitic hatred and bloodshed lies a matter of first-century politics. At the time of Christianity’s origin, there was a necessity to blame someone for Jesus’ death. But blaming the Romans would not have been wise – Christians existed at Rome’s sufferance in any case, and depicting their founder as a criminal executed by the Romans for treason would have been inviting far worse persecution. The natural alternative was to cast blame on the Jews, whom the gospels depict as conspiring to murder Jesus with, at worst, the reluctant cooperation of the Roman authorities.

As Christianity cast off its Jewish origins, this story was found useful to serve other purposes. Finding few converts among the Jews, Christianity’s evangelists began targeting Gentiles for conversion. The depiction of the Jews as a stubborn, hardhearted people, cursed by God with blindness and unbelief as punishment for their sins, was readily integrated with the Gospel story and used to explain why these people had so widely rejected the faith that was born among them.

Consider some specific examples of biblical anti-Semitism. While all the gospels record Jesus as engaging in debate with the scribes and Pharisees, only the Gospel of John elevates these disputes to an accusation of corporate guilt against “the Jews” in general: “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him” (5:16). The fourth gospel also says of Jesus: “He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” (7:1) and adds darkly that “no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews” (7:13). In the crowning accusation, John depicts Jesus as accusing “the Jews” as follows:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

—John 8:44

When Jesus is tried before Pilate, John writes: “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die” (19:7), and adds: “Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend” (19:12).

Ironically, the single most anti-Semitic verse of the gospels comes in the book that otherwise shows the most understanding and sympathy for the Jewish viewpoint, the Gospel of Matthew. In this bloodcurdling verse, the Jewish spectators demand that responsibility for Jesus’ death be placed on themselves and on all their descendants:

“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.

—Matthew 27:24-25

The anti-Semitism continues in the Book of Acts, where the apostle Stephen is made to say what would become a common Christian refrain against the Jews – that they had always been a sinful and stubborn people with a history of killing prophets, culminating in the supreme atrocity of their killing God’s only son:

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.”

—Acts 7:51-52

The epistle of Titus adds another pervasive element of anti-Semitic lore, the Jews’ supposed obsession with money, and adds threateningly that “[their] mouths must be stopped”.

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”

—Titus 1:10-11

The first epistle of Thessalonians, in what may be a later interpolation, alludes to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as a deserved punishment from God:

“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”

—1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

And the Book of Revelation repeats John’s accusation that the Jews were secret demon-worshippers:

“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.”

—Revelation 3:9

Rivers of innocent Jewish blood have been spilled through the ages because of verses like these. Today, to their credit, the mainstream Protestant churches have gone a long way toward banishing anti-Semitism to the shadows – but it is far from dead. It still has some prominent backers, such as John Hagee (as well as Mr. “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world” himself), and the Catholic church is intently moving backward.

However, Christian anti-Semitism has taken on a more subtle form: the so-called “Christian Zionist” movement, which encourages militant Jewish settlers to further expand their settlements in the occupied territory of the West Bank. What few of these people mention explicitly is that they encourage the settlers because they believe it will more swiftly bring on the End Times, in which one-third of Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest will be slaughtered and then eternally condemned to Hell. This veiled wish for a new Holocaust, one condoned and directed by God, must be the most virulent manifestation of anti-Semitism to be found in all the dark history of Christianity.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • Virginia

    If we take the dates when the 4 books of Gospels was composed, we can’t help but ask the questions, are these books composed by genuine Jews or whipped up by Greek speaking gentile Christians who were not fond of the Jews.
    The earliest, “According to Mark”, was composed around 70 CE just after the temple was destroyed, Luke and Matthew around 90 CE and John near the end of the first century — all at least 1 to 2 generations after the alleged death of Christ.

    For John to be so anti-Semitic, you will not expect the author to be a Jew.

    Furthermore, studied showed that the authors’ knowledge about the Old Testament, Jewish custom and geography of Palestine was horrid — they could well be compilations of early Chritstian works written by gentiles to fabricate a picture of Jesus, and as the anti-Semitism sentiment was high, their anti-Semitism slipped into the text.

  • http://anadder.com Michael

    The ironic thing is that the Gospels also contain some anti-Gentile bigotry. For instance Matthew 15

    22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

    23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

    24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

    25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

    26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

    27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

    28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

    “Well gee, he was obviously testing her by pretending to be a racist!”

    This just underscores how many books of the Bible are a pastiche of different (often opposing) theological and political views.

  • bassmanpete

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but (if you believe The Bible) the whole purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to die for our sins. It was preordained by God; he dies, he’s resurrected, so he’s not dead anyway! Why blame anyone? It all smacks of an excuse to justify killing people you don’t like for other reasons.

  • Eric

    Who cares? It’s just one branch of the Abrahamic evil alien religions warring against another. Let the the enemy weaken themselves by fighting.

  • Leum

    Let the the enemy weaken themselves by fighting.

    Um, dude, you’re dangerously close to apologizing for genocide.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    Speaking of Jewish settlers on the West Bank, we could stick all of them in Detroit and it still would not make up for that city’s population loss over the last several decades.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.info cl

    This post misses the mark.

    In no way do I mean to argue that none who call themselves Christians are anti-Semitic, and I know there are all sorts of crazy groups and individuals out there. There’s bigotry and absurdity in every group. I’m not defending or condemning Hagee, Zionists, or anybody here. Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative.

    ..responsible for many more atrocities against the Jewish people than any of their other enemies.

    More than Nazi’s, Skinheads, Romans, Babylonians and Palestinians, too? Is there an actual justification for that claim, or was it just sort of tongue-in-cheek? Also, can you be more specific regarding specific culprits? All you do is offer us a blanket statement of “this [Christian] faith” in connection with culpability, but that comes across as eerily similar to the allegations I hear you making in this post.

    Point is, I caught the title of this post and laughed aloud, then it came to me: The titles of your Bible posts often read like tabloid headlines. You know how tabloid headlines just sort of attempt to “inject” the writer’s conclusion into the reader’s psyche? Well, congratulations on another completely one-sided presentation of scripture to prove your point. As usual, you don’t even touch the concept of context, and don’t let anyone know about any of the verses that might challenge your argument. You just arbitrarily say a bunch of verses indicate anti-Semitism, but you don’t really support your case. For example, the entire paragraph beginning,

    Consider some specific examples of biblical anti-Semitism…

    is bunk. Noting that a group of Jews wanted to kill Jesus is not anti-Semitic. While certainly sharp and accusatory, Jesus’ words in John 8:44 criticize the religious buearocracy of that time. Many of these people and copyists were Jews themselves; so did they hate their own race? In many of these verses, what you describe is more akin to something like inter-cultural condemnation, which has expressions in our own society, too. To posit these and many of the other verses here as anti-Semitic is a stretch that just suggests desperation IMO.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    cl,

    More than Nazi’s, Skinheads, Romans, Babylonians and Palestinians, too? Is there an actual justification for that claim, or was it just sort of tongue-in-cheek? Also, can you be more specific regarding specific culprits? All you do is offer us a blanket statement of “this [Christian] faith” in connection with culpability, but that comes across as eerily similar to the allegations I hear you making in this post.

    Are you aware that most of the Nazis were self-professed Christians? Did you miss Ebonmouse’s citing of Martin Luther — his works are laced with much direct anti-Semitism. The Jews and their Lies? How is that not anti-Semitic?

  • Leum

    Noting that a group of Jews wanted to kill Jesus is not anti-Semitic

    Except that the manner of Jesus’ death strongly indicates he was executed by the Roman authorities for treason, not by the Jewish authorities for blasphemy.

    The penalty for blasphemy under Judaic law is stoning (lapidation). Hanging, when performed, was done only after death.

    The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxi. 22]: “And he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree.” And lest one say: “All who are put to death must also be hanged,” therefore it is written in the second verse [ibid.., ibid. 23]: “For he that is hanged is a dishonor of God” (a blasphemer), and as a blasphemer is to be stoned, the same is the case with all others who are to be stoned. (source)

    Jesus was killed on Friday, before Shabbat.

    The greatest difficulty from the point of view of the Jewish penal procedure is presented by the day and time of the execution. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on Friday, the eve of Sabbath. Yet on that day, in view of the approach of the Sabbath (or holiday), executions lasting until late in the afternoon were almost impossible (Sifre, ii. 221; Sanh. 35b; Mekilta to Wayaḳhel) (source.

    Furthermore

    [M]any of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, “king of the Jews,” was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, “Vespas.” 4; “Claudius,” xxv.; Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 5, § 1; 8, § 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus (“Annales,” 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate’s part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this does not agree with his character, as recorded elsewhere (see Süchrer, “Gesch.” Index, s.v.) (ibid).

    To say that Jews wanted to kill Jesus is at the least verging on antisemitism; to say that Jesus was killed because of or by the Jews is entirely contrary to Jewish history and law, it constitutes a slander against the Jewish people and is certainly antisemitic. When the Gospels accuse the Jews of killing Jesus (which they absolutely do; it is not coincidental that Jesus’ betrayer was named Judas), they are lying.

  • Entomologista

    Also, can you be more specific regarding specific culprits?

    Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism wrote a book called The Jews and Their Lies. Why do you think he did that? Maybe it’s because he hated Jews.

  • mike

    bassmanpete:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but (if you believe The Bible) the whole purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to die for our sins. It was preordained by God; he dies, he’s resurrected, so he’s not dead anyway! Why blame anyone? It all smacks of an excuse to justify killing people you don’t like for other reasons.

    Agreed. What would an anti-Semite prefer the Jews had done? Keep Jesus safe and sound until he died of old age? Seems to me like that would sure put a damper on the whole Lamb of God thing. Why not be grateful to the Jews for so readily fulfilling the Messianic prophesies?

  • Stephen P

    cl:

    The titles of your Bible posts often read like tabloid headlines.

    What on earth led you to this statement? The title of this post is a perfectly straightforward description of the content. The tabloid headline equivalent would be “GOSPELS BASH JEWS” (in font-size 400%) or something similar.

    As usual, you don’t even touch the concept of context, and don’t let anyone know about any of the verses that might challenge your argument.

    And, funnily enough, you don’t either.

    Not that it would help much. As has been pointed out many, many times, the bible is a mass of contradictory material. The fact that a dubious statement in one place is contradicted by another statement elsewhere does not make the first statement any less dubious. As long as Christians keep pushing their 1600-year-old bible, and refuse to make any major corrections or clarifications in it (they can’t of course, since no two Christian groups would agree on any set of corrections) then we are entitled to criticise the bible – every last verse of it.

    Teleprompter has already taken you up on your ridiculous Nazi comment. If you use (even implicitly) the argument that the Nazi’s formed an atheist society magically unrelated to the anti-semitic Christian society in which they originated, then you can hardly expect to be taken seriously here.

  • lpetrich

    Matthew Matthew 27:24-25 seems odd to me, because it’s not what a typical lynch mob would say — they’d say that Jesus Christ deserved his fate. Consider US lynch mobs — some lynchers took pictures of their handiwork and some politicians protected them from anti-lynching laws.

    As to the New Testament’s anti-Semitism despite Xianity starting off as a Jewish sect, I think that it’s because the NT’s writers were displeased by most other Jews rejecting them as heretics.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    More than Nazi’s…?

    As has been pointed out, most Nazis were Christians. And to read an excellent overview of the religious bedrock of the European anti-semitism in that era, check out both Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners and Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    There’s another anti-Semitic verse in the New Testament that I didn’t mention in this post. It’s more subtle and symbolic than the others I cited, but for that very reason, I think it conveys the anti-Jewish message more powerfully than any others.

    “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection… But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

    …But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.”

    —Mark 15:7-15

    The Jewish crowd’s demand to Pilate that he crucify Jesus is bad enough (and is probably where Matthew got the idea for the embellished, even more vicious version of this scene in his gospel). But what’s more subtle to the modern reader is that Mark is making a nasty little play on words. “Barabbas” is Aramaic for “son of the father”. Thus, in having the crowd choose Barabbas, Mark and the later gospel writers who copied him are symbolically asserting that the Jews chose the wrong “son of the father”. (Some early manuscripts give Barabbas’ name as “Jesus Barabbas”, making the point even clearer.)

    There’s no extra-biblical record of this alleged Roman custom of releasing one political prisoner each year at the demand of the masses. Indeed, it would have been incomprehensibly bizarre for them to do this, considering the Romans’ attitude toward insurrectionists. The only plausible conclusion is that Mark has simply invented this custom to make his scene work, and this means that he wasn’t putting it in because it really happened – he was putting it in because he wanted it there. And that can only mean he wanted to send this message: that the Jews had salvation in their grasp and rejected it, choosing a pretender over the true Son of God, whom they condemned to be crucified.

  • Wayne Essel

    Ebonmuse, I’m not sure that this one is anti-semitic. And that is the case with a couple others, as well. But using this one as an example, it may only mean the following (I snitched this from Yahoo Answers)

    The “son of the father” who was guilty and in prison and deserved to be put to death, was Barabbas, who represents fallen mankind. Jesus took Barabbas’ rightful place upon that cursed tree, and Barabbas was set free. Yes, fallen mankind was restored by the sacrifical Lamb of God.

    It could be an metaphorical example, created for the purpose of teaching a principle and interwoven with the crucifixion story. It does not seem to be to me anti-semitic.

  • lpetrich

    This Jesus/Barabbas incident has a close resemblance to the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus, where one goat is sacrificed and another goat released into the wilderness.

    Jesus = sacrificed goat
    Barabbas = goat released into the wilderness

    Now why might the Romans have indulged in a human version of some odd custom of some of their subjects?

  • André

    Wayne, I think the problem with that interpretation is that the verse doesn’t have Jesus choosing to go in Barabbas’s place, it has the Jews choosing for him. I don’t know, maybe you could argue that the author was having them do it to give the impression that they wanted the symbolism or the redemptive sacrifice or something, but it doesn’t really read that way. It sounds much more like they just wanted him executed.

    The only example I wonder about is the last one in the original post. It seems to me like it’s saying there will be Satan-worshipers who pretend to be Jews, not that all Jews are Satan-worshipers.

  • vel

    cl writes “In no way do I mean to argue that none who call themselves Christians are anti-Semitic, and I know there are all sorts of crazy groups and individuals out there. There’s bigotry and absurdity in every group. I’m not defending or condemning Hagee, Zionists, or anybody here. Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative.”

    One more theist who is sure that they and those who agree wtih them are the only “TrueChristians”. No evidence other than “ooh, we dont’ like what they do” to show that they are anymore divinely inspired than the other Christians. It would be very nice if God would show which of you are the real ones and which of you aren’t, perhaps smiting someone who misused the words “God” and “Jesus”. But not so strangely there is no word from the big guy.

  • vel

    oh and wayne, can you tell me how to determine what is metaphor and what is literal in the bible? It always seems that those uncomfortable bits always magically becoem metaphors when Christians don’t want to admit that their supposed holy book is a nasty piece of work.

  • http://www.bethelburnett.blogspot.com Pastor Burnett

    This is a JOKE. You say it’s antisemitic for Jesus to have rebuked the Pharisees and that he hated Jews??? Ever stopped to consider that he was a Jew…a Semite also…Unvbelieveable.

  • Leum

    None of us have said Jesus was an anti-Semite*, we’re saying that there are antisemitic passages in the Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse. Since most of us here don’t think the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus’ life**, it follows that we don’t consider the words attributed to Jesus to be legitimate.

    The Gospels in general present a caricature of Phariseeism, from which modern Rabbinic Judaism emerged. Many of Jesus’ teachings, including those which the Gospels claim are opposed to the Phariseeism were actually consistent with those teachings. Examples include concern for the poor and needy, belief that Shabbat could not be violated even to save lives, and the golden rule. The strongest criticism, that the Pharisees ignored the spirit of the law for the letter, is entirely untrue. Phariseeism made the death penalty nearly impossible to carry out, interpreted “an eye for an eye” as requiring monetary compensation rather than the plucking of an eye, etc. It is not improbable that the references in the Gospels to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees were added after it was clear that they rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

    It would not have been anti-Semitic to rebuke the Pharisees, but many of Jesus’ rebukes in the Gospels are little more than slander against the Pharisees, and so do constitute antisemitism.

    *Though it is certainly possible for a Jew to be anti-Semitic, just as there are black racists and female misogynists.

    **IIRC, Ebon doesn’t believe early Christianity believed that the Christ ever walked on the physical Earth.

  • Alex Weaver

    This is a JOKE. You say it’s antisemitic for Jesus to have rebuked the Pharisees and that he hated Jews??? Ever stopped to consider that he was a Jew…a Semite also…Unvbelieveable.

    Please tell me someone this articulate and clear-thinking isn’t actually in a position that involves communicating with and instructing others.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.info cl

    Teleprompter,

    Are you aware that most of the Nazis were self-professed Christians? Did you miss Ebonmouse’s citing of Martin Luther — his works are laced with much direct anti-Semitism. The Jews and their Lies? How is that not anti-Semitic?

    Are you aware that your question completely ignores mine? Are you aware that I said, “Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative,” or did you miss that part? Ebon made a historical “numbers-claim” with zero support. Knowing his propensity to inflate claims, I want to see the numbers. I like you and your comments are usually well-thought-out, so try to pay a little closer attention here.

    Leum,

    As far as I know, Jesus was killed according to the rules employed by Roman authorities. You say this yourself. Therefore, I don’t really understand your argument. How is it anti-Semitic for John to record that a group of specific Jews (the Pharisees, “chief priests” and teachers of the law) was at odds with Christ and encouraged His execution?

    As an aside, you told Pastor Burnett you don’t think “the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus’ life.” If the gospels aren’t accurate, then aren’t you relying on “inaccurate” documents for your “anti-Semitism” claims? Surely we can’t argue that they’re accurate when we want to prove one point, but that they’re not when we seek to prove another, right?

    Also to Pastor Burnett, you said,

    Many of Jesus’ teachings, including those which the Gospels claim are opposed to the Phariseeism were actually consistent with those teachings. Examples include concern for the poor and needy, belief that Shabbat could not be violated even to save lives, and the golden rule.

    That Shabbat could not be violated even to save lives was not something Jesus taught. The Bible clearly indicates Jesus taught the exact opposite: “If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, would you not help it out?” Am I missing something else that would enable to understand this part of your argument?

    It would not have been anti-Semitic to rebuke the Pharisees..

    I agree, then:

    ..many of Jesus’ rebukes in the Gospels are little more than slander against the Pharisees, and so do constitute antisemitism.

    Such as?

    Entomologista,

    One person != “culprits” and your induction seems a bit hasty. I don’t know why Luther wrote the book, nor do I need to defend Luther or Protestantism. I will defend the claim that the Bible is not anti-Semitic.

    Stephen P,

    What on earth led you to this statement?

    I explained it. Tabloid headlines seek to inject the conclusion into the reader’s psyche. The rest of your comment indicates that your mind is clearly decided on the issue, so unless something changes, I’d appreciate it if in the future you’d spare my time.

    Thumpalumpacus,

    As has been pointed out, most Nazis were Christians.

    You mean, as has been claimed without evidence and you now echo without evidence? How many Nazis existed? What time frame are we using to base our estimations? What is the definition of a Christian? Your argument (as well as teleprompter’s and Ebonmuse’s) is rhetorical and not founded on anything real. Show me the evidence, rationalist – don’t just parrot unsubstantiated claims.

    Ebonmuse,

    The Jewish crowd’s demand to Pilate that he crucify Jesus is bad enough

    So, a Jew saying that a certain group of Jews wanted a certain Jew crucified entails anti-Semitism? How so?

    André,

    The only example I wonder about is the last one in the original post. It seems to me like it’s saying there will be Satan-worshipers who pretend to be Jews, not that all Jews are Satan-worshipers.

    Thank you for that. Ebonmuse’s claim that “Revelation repeats John’s accusation that the Jews were secret demon-worshippers” is exactly what I talk about when I say he just looks hastily for that which supports his point.

    vel,

    One more theist who is sure that they and those who agree wtih them are the only “TrueChristians”.

    That’s not what I’ve said at all. Don’t jump to conclusions.

    Alex Weaver,

    Great response to Pastor Burnett there. Completely irrelevant to the actual issues, of course, but hey – apparently snide pedantry works for some.

  • Leum

    @ cl:

    Therefore, I don’t really understand your argument. How is it anti-Semitic for John to record that a group of specific Jews (the Pharisees, “chief priests” and teachers of the law) was at odds with Christ and encouraged His execution?

    It was more of an argument that the manner of Jesus’ death was not consistent with the Pharisees demanding it, especially with Pilate not wanting to execute him. Had Pilate “washed his hands” of the affair, it seems unlikely that Jesus would have been executed in the Roman manner, especially when Crucifixion is contrary to Judaic law.

    As an aside, you told Pastor Burnett you don’t think “the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus’ life.” If the gospels aren’t accurate, then aren’t you relying on “inaccurate” documents for your “anti-Semitism” claims? Surely we can’t argue that they’re accurate when we want to prove one point, but that they’re not when we seek to prove another, right?

    The Gospels are inaccurate. As I told Pastor Burnett, I’m accusing the Gospel writers, scribes, or translators (I have no idea when the antisemitism entered) of being antisemitic in their depiction of Jesus’ life; I am not accusing Jesus of antisemitism.

    That Shabbat could not be violated even to save lives was not something Jesus taught. The Bible clearly indicates Jesus taught the exact opposite: “If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, would you not help it out?” Am I missing something else that would enable to understand this part of your argument?

    Typo on my part. Both the Pharisees would have agreed with Jesus that healing someone on Shabbat was acceptable.

    ..many of Jesus’ rebukes in the Gospels are little more than slander against the Pharisees, and so do constitute antisemitism.

    Such as?

    That the Pharisees put the letter of the law before the spirit and that they were unconcerned with the Great Commandment of doing unto others as they would have others do unto them.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    cl,

    Are you aware that your question completely ignores mine? Are you aware that I said, “Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative,” or did you miss that part? Ebon made a historical “numbers-claim” with zero support. Knowing his propensity to inflate claims, I want to see the numbers. I like you and your comments are usually well-thought-out, so try to pay a little closer attention here.

    And how do you suppose that people would be able to extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative? What do you suppose is the mechanism for that process?

    What Ebon seems to be discussing is why there is so much material in the content of the Gospels itself that could be construed as anti-Semitic. Why do these passages exist in this form that they are found in, so that it could be so easy for people to extract anti-Semitism from them? Actually, Ebon’s claim is that we don’t even have to “extract” anti-Semitism from these passages — he’s claiming that it’s right there on the surface, and I believe that these verses show that the anti-Semitism is present in the Gospels themselves even if some Christians did not believe it.

    Numbers? I don’t know the exact number of how many died during the Spanish Inquisition, during the Crusades, during the Holocaust, or during various other purges. Why don’t you look for the figures yourself – unless you don’t want to know?

    Cl, the text is clear in these cases: you can very well argue that those who acted on these verses had an un-Christian attitude according to your personal beliefs, but unfortunately, it wasn’t your personal beliefs about Christianity that were transmitted in these verses.

  • purpletempest

    This may have been touched on already in earlier comments. I apologize for the lack of citations, but I think I first came across this idea in the Jesus Puzzle which Ebon’s other site links to. Basically, the author of Matthew is writing in the style of ancient Jewish scribes who wrote the books of the OT, and what seems like anti-semitic thought is actually a literary device common to those works, where they bemoan their fellow Jews screwing up in the eyes of the Lord yet again. Worshipping idols, praying to “false gods”, and now they’ve gone and killed their latest prophet, way to go, guys. I see this verse as Matthew hearkening back to those traditions where everything bad that ever happened to Israelites was because they weren’t being good Chosen people so God was punishing them. I think in a roundabout way he’s equating Jesus’s death to the Babylonian exile, to the destruction of the temple, etc. etc. This is all in keeping with the author being a Jew. The fact that this verse and others later got twisted into an excuse for anti-Semitism doesn’t mean that’s what ‘Matthew’ originally meant.

    I think I can also make this same argument for Mark, but Luke/Acts and John are tougher. Arguments for the authors being Jewish or Gentile both have merit. I tend to believe they’re also Jewish though, because given the divisions among Jewish sects at the time, it’s possible that a Jewish author could have been criticizing other Jews, because they weren’t the “right” kind of Jew. Essenes vs. Syrians vs. Sadduccees vs. Pharisees…it’s not like we’re talking a unified culture, here.

    The Jesus Puzzle website, btw, is what convinced me that there really was no historical Jesus. Thus all the gospels are fiction, anyway.

  • Pingback: Anti-Semitism in the Christian Bible | Love Atheism

  • Matt

    There is no comprehensive understanding of Scripture that allows for anti-Semitism. The Jews were stiff-necked and greedy, and worshippers of Satan — So are we all!

    That’s the whole point! If you’re going to be anti-Semitic, you have to be anti-all of us, because the guilt is on all of our heads.

    It’s made very very clear in Scripture that Jesus was not killed by the will of particular Jewish leaders (“No man takes my life, I give it up” He says) but because of the sin of the human race.

    The anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages was just one example of the stupidity that follows when only the priestly class is allowed (or able) to actually read the Bible. The people, for the most part, had no comprehensive understanding of Christian doctrine. It was impossible for them to know that anti-Semitism is against Christian teaching.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    You mean, as has been claimed without evidence and you now echo without evidence? How many Nazis existed? What time frame are we using to base our estimations? What is the definition of a Christian? Your argument (as well as teleprompter’s and Ebonmuse’s) is rhetorical and not founded on anything real. Show me the evidence, rationalist – don’t just parrot unsubstantiated claims.

    Either you didn’t finish reading my comment, or you deliberately ignored the two sources. As I am at a public computer, I don’t have the books handy, and thus cannot provide you with page numbers, but let me ask you this: What proportion of Germans in general were Christian? And what nationality were members of the NSDAP? And how many members did it have?

    IIRC, 96% of Germans at the time were christian. In general, Nazis were German, though there were some exceptions — Seyss-Inquart comes to mind. In 1942 approximately 7 million germans were members of the Nazi Party. Given the German population was about 70 million about 10% of Germans in the party. Now, 4% of 70 million is 2.8 million non-Christians. See where I’m going with this? Even if every non-Christian in Germany were NSDAP members, that’d still leave about 4.2 million Christian Nazis — thus, by running the numbers, we see that at least 60% of Nazis in 1942 were Christian. And it seems likely that this ratio understates the matter, because non-Christians had a bad habit of getting put into concentration camps.

    Insofar as sources are concerned, I refer you again to the two above-mentioned, as well as Toland’s biography of Hitler, whence the numbers come from, IIRC.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    The anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages was just one example of the stupidity that follows when only the priestly class is allowed (or able) to actually read the Bible. The people, for the most part, had no comprehensive understanding of Christian doctrine. It was impossible for them to know that anti-Semitism is against Christian teaching.

    How, then, do you explain the atni-Semitism of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries in a quite literate laity?

  • 2-D Man

    Once again, cl trots off into wide world of irrelevancy before anyone can stop him.

    And this:

    There is no comprehensive understanding of Scripture that allows for anti-Semitism. The Jews were stiff-necked and greedy, and worshippers of Satan — So are we all!
    That’s the whole point! If you’re going to be anti-Semitic, you have to be anti-all of us, because the guilt is on all of our heads.

    makes me want to call poe on Matt @28.

  • Alex Weaver
    Are you aware that most of the Nazis were self-professed Christians? Did you miss Ebonmouse’s citing of Martin Luther — his works are laced with much direct anti-Semitism. The Jews and their Lies? How is that not anti-Semitic?

    Are you aware that your question completely ignores mine? Are you aware that I said, “Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative,” or did you miss that part? Ebon made a historical “numbers-claim” with zero support. Knowing his propensity to inflate claims, I want to see the numbers. I like you and your comments are usually well-thought-out, so try to pay a little closer attention here.

    The numbers for “Christians” include the overwhelming majority of the Nazis. How did you miss this?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    Hello Matt,

    It’s made very very clear in Scripture that Jesus was not killed by the will of particular Jewish leaders (“No man takes my life, I give it up” He says) but because of the sin of the human race.

    While that may be true – that Jesus, according to the Bible, laid down his life willingly, that it was his plan all along to do so – it doesn’t follow that there’s no biblical justification for blaming the people who were responsible for it. It’s perfectly possible to believe both that Jesus’ death was a salvific necessity and also that the act of killing him was a grave crime. The Bible itself says this:

    “For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7)

    “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.” (Mark 14:21)

    What you also overlook here is that the Bible quite specifically puts the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews, and no other group:

    “For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, NIV translation)

    The anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages was just one example of the stupidity that follows when only the priestly class is allowed (or able) to actually read the Bible. The people, for the most part, had no comprehensive understanding of Christian doctrine. It was impossible for them to know that anti-Semitism is against Christian teaching.

    Matt’s facile rationalization doesn’t account for the fact that some particularly vicious anti-Semitism came from Christian church fathers and apologists who lived in the first few centuries CE – people who actually spoke the language that the New Testament was written in. For example:

    “Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.”

    —John Chrysostom (c.347 – 407), Eight Homilies Against the Jews (source)

    And what about Martin Luther, famous for his “priesthood of all believers”? How would Matt account for the fact that he was one of the most violently raving anti-Semites in Christian history, arguing that all synagogues should be burned down and the Jews should be enslaved and used for forced labor?

  • Alex Weaver

    Alex Weaver,

    Great response to Pastor Burnett there. Completely irrelevant to the actual issues, of course, but hey – apparently snide pedantry works for some.

    As Jefferson observed, “Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…”

    And, I’ll just add one more thing.

  • vel

    Cl, wrote “That’s not what I’ve said at all. Don’t jump to conclusions.” to my comment of “One more theist who is sure that they and those who agree wtih them are the only “TrueChristians”.”

    Oh really. Let look. “”In no way do I mean to argue that none who call themselves Christians are anti-Semitic, and I know there are all sorts of crazy groups and individuals out there. There’s bigotry and absurdity in every group. I’m not defending or condemning Hagee, Zionists, or anybody here. Certainly we can find people calling themselves Christian who extract anti-Semitism out of the gospel narrative.” Let’s see, “call themselves Chrsitians”, the usual wording of someone who considers “those other people” who don’t agree with them to be simply poseurs.

  • http://jesusbarabbas.info Roland Bouchard

    ‘Once upon a time, approximately 2,000 years ago, there was a ‘Jewish’ man named Jesus, -he was called, in the common language of his contemporaries, Barabbas, -translated, means: (the) ‘Son of God’. He was reputed to be “a notorious robber, murder and insurrectionist”. He was incongruently “released” from certain crucifixion.’

    Does the above scenario strike anyone (besides this author) as being peculiar?
    Despite the ‘fact’ that he was “notorious”, nobody, to my knowledge, ever heard of him. Moreover, nobody seems to know where he came from. Further, nobody knows where he went or what he did after he was “released”.

    Standing on the stage of ecclesiastical history’s most dramatic and celebrated hour, like a potted plant of poison ivy, nobody said anything to him, conversely, he said nothing whatsoever to anybody.

    Jesus, the Son of God, is anathema, -and, an enigma, -that is until now… or, rather as it has never been explained to you before this day.

    Know it for truth that Jesus Barabbas is exactly as His appellation indicates.
    You, dear present-day reader, ‘choose’ to “release” Him and banish Him from your attention and concern.

    How, pray tell, can you know anything about ‘God’ (who or what you can not see), when you know nothing about Him who God sent to you?

    Do you await the Second Coming when you do not know that He came previously, -expressly to provide the living Truth for all and sundry?

    You ‘read’ (or not) in stead the works of cunning knaves and spend your days arguing over your own fantasies and conjured invisible things. You often times contribute to your own folly by your own hand, -indeed, can it be otherwise?

    I can not teach you anything, neither do I attempt to even try, -your learning is in your own hands, -your understanding is your own. However, I can and do wish you Godspeed in your fate.

    It has been said in olden times, “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you,
    -seek and you shall find.” It seems reasonable to me to heed such words. Let me add my own: All seek without and go nowhere, -few seek within and go everywhere.

    Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.

  • http://whyihatejesus.blogspot.com OMGF

    I can not teach you anything, neither do I attempt to even try…

    Then, I suppose we can all safely disregard the word salad above.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.info cl

    Teleprompter,

    Numbers? I don’t know the exact number of how many died during the Spanish Inquisition, during the Crusades, during the Holocaust, or during various other purges. Why don’t you look for the figures yourself – unless you don’t want to know?

    Ebon made the claim. It’s his responsibility to present the evidence for that claim, else retract it as an rhetorical device. I’m willing to drop it, as it’s just a side-issue in the overall discussion, and I don’t expect Ebon to respond.

    Actually, Ebon’s claim is that we don’t even have to “extract” anti-Semitism from these passages — he’s claiming that it’s right there on the surface,

    Yes, that’s Ebon’s claim. He hasn’t defended it by answering the questions I raised in my comments. He won’t even respond to me because I’m “the troll.” How or why he fancies that freethought is another issue entirely.

    ..the text is clear in these cases: you can very well argue that those who acted on these verses had an un-Christian attitude according to your personal beliefs..

    The text is clear: a group of religiously conservative Jews wanted Jesus dead. In no way does that entail that “the gospels are anti-Semitic.”

    Alex Weaver,

    “The Nazis.” Gotcha. Hitler and many of “the Nazis” were also evolutionists. Hitler endorsed Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes to incubate delusions of grandeur about a super race. Mussolini, who also revered Neitzche and repeatedly quoted Darwin, held that war and killing were essential for the survival of the fittest. Do you equally blame evolution for those deaths, too?

    Ebonmuse,

    Neither Matthew 18:7 or Mark 14:21 support your claims of anti-Semitism.

    ..the Bible quite specifically puts the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews, and no other group..

    A group of Jews is different than all Jews. “The Jews” in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 refers to what the Bible repeatedly mentions elsewhere as the “chief priests and teachers of the law,” a.k.a. the Pharisees. Else, were Paul, Silas and Timothy being “anti-Semitic” against themselves when they recorded the data?

    It’s perfectly possible to believe both that Jesus’ death was a salvific necessity and also that the act of killing him was a grave crime.

    Sure, and noting that the act of killing Jesus was a grave crime (I’d say tragedy or blunder is a better word, but that’s just a quibble) does not entail anti-Semitism.

    And what about Martin Luther, famous for his “priesthood of all believers”?

    How Luther interpreted the text has no bearing on the text. Your line of reasoning is purely fallacious here. You are arguing as those who blame Darwin for the Holocaust.

    vel,

    Let’s see, “call themselves Chrsitians”, the usual wording of someone who considers “those other people” who don’t agree with them to be simply poseurs.

    Not at all. I don’t reason that those who don’t agree with me are posers. It’s that scapegoating is rarely useful.

  • http://www.myspace.com/driftwoodduo Steve Bowen

    cl

    Hitler endorsed Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes to incubate delusions of grandeur about a super race.

    At the risk of starting a hunt for Scottish Darwinians, Neitzche was hardly a poster child for evolution and his view of striving humanity was at odds with the concept of natural selection (<a hrefwhich he largely dismissed).

  • http://www.myspace.com/driftwoodduo Steve Bowen

    Sorry link didn’t work (no preview again) tried to cite http://www.hichumanities.org/Ahproceedings/James%20Birx.pdf

  • Thumpalumpacus

    cl –

    Couldn’t help but notice my absence from you list of replies. Have you none?

    Oh, and I attribute both their xianity and their social darwinism to a greed for power, which used any means at its disposal to justify its existence. Please do not infer that I believe such a powerful phenomenon can be so easily explained; it can’t. I do not believe that Fascism was caused by xianity; I was merely clarifying that the majority of Nazis were indeed xian. In so stating, I am not implying that the converse is true. Just so we’re clear on it, eh?

  • Alex Weaver

    “The Nazis.” Gotcha. Hitler and many of “the Nazis” were also evolutionists. Hitler endorsed Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes to incubate delusions of grandeur about a super race. Mussolini, who also revered Neitzche and repeatedly quoted Darwin, held that war and killing were essential for the survival of the fittest. Do you equally blame evolution for those deaths, too?

    Citation? Because aside from the part about Mussolini, all of these claims are lies, and have been exposed repeatedly as lies, including on this blog.

  • Alex Weaver

    (By which I mean I’m not aware of the status of the Mussolini claim, not that I’m conceding it’s true.)

  • Thumpalumpacus

    Alex –

    Neiztche’ ideas about the Hero were consciously suborned into Nazi theology by Houston Stewart Chamberlain around 1924 — right after the Putsch., Indeed, Chamberlain proclaimed Hitler to be the fulfillment of Neitzche’s “prediction”.

    Hitler did indeed promote a form of Social Darwinism, more on the national level than the societal or “in-group/out-group” level. But cl is wrong in asserting that either aspect played a role in the concept of “ubermenschen”. That idea had been extant for a loooong time before the Nazis, Neitzche, or even Origin.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.info cl

    Hi Steve Bowen. I really wish you’d come around my blog more. Lots of atheism out there is not level-headed, but I’ve always thought most of what you’ve had to say was different. Sorry if I’ve swooned on you, just being real and positive, because there’s plenty of negative out there.

    Getting to it,

    ..Neitzche was hardly a poster child for evolution and his view of striving humanity was at odds with the concept of natural selection..

    You’re right, but realize that when I say Hitler endorsed Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes I’ve not said Neitzche was a poster child for evolution, in the sense of the theory. “Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes” refer more to, well… Neitzche’s evolutionary platitudes. I’m not saying they were necessarily the same as science’s at that time, for Neitzche embraced evolutionary platitudes comparable to de Chardin – not necessarily what we would call “raw Darwinism” nor scientifically synonymous with the Modern Synthesis. I’ll postulate off the cuff that Hitler certainly embraced more Darwinism than Neitzche, but Hitler gleaned much of his “master race” ideas from Neitzche’s idea of the “overman” or UberMensch. I hope that makes sense.

    The source material you provided was good, and your comment perfectly highlights my overall point of making my comment, which is that we can’t just take any old person who adheres to some version of some idea and blame the errors they make on the idea. That’s what the “Nazis were Christians” arguments being lobbed around here are doing.

    Thumpalumpacus,

    Couldn’t help but notice my absence from you list of replies.

    Actually, I must have skimmed over comment #30, and I apologize. I’m only allowed to comment here once every 27 hours, so my general M.O. is to leave a comment, come back 2 days later, and address any responses all at once. Ineffective, I agree, as it forces me to compromise reason for the sake of brevity, but on the flip side, such challenges one’s writing, and that’s always good. Surely you can have some sympathy, if not, petition Ebonmuse. Lastly, for what it’s worth, I would always love to discuss without restraints, and we can always talk elsewhere. I have a blog, if you don’t.

    Have you none?

    Of course I have a reply to your comment #30, but first: what exactly are you talking about when you say, ” cl is wrong in asserting that either aspect played a role in the concept of “ubermenschen”. That idea had been extant for a loooong time before the Nazis, Neitzche, or even Origin.”? That way, I can respond to both in my next response.

    Alex Weaver,

    ..aside from the part about Mussolini, all of these claims are lies, and have been exposed repeatedly as lies, including on this blog.

    There’s that “dissent = dishonesty” attitude I’ve been noticing and criticizing around the Aetheosphere lately. Alex, what is your evidence that I’ve knowingly offered false information in this thread? State it now, please. Else, do not make unsupported accusations against other people, let alone truth-claims you cannot sustain, rationalist.

  • Thumpalumpacus

    Of course I have a reply to your comment #30, but first: what exactly are you talking about when you say, ” cl is wrong in asserting that either aspect played a role in the concept of “ubermenschen”. That idea had been extant for a loooong time before the Nazis, Neitzche, or even Origin.”? That way, I can respond to both in my next response.

    Meaning, neither Nietzche nor Social Darwinism contributed to the idea of the ubermenschen. This crackpot idea is sourced in the equally crackpot idea of Aryanism, the difference being that SD is considered the mechanism of fulfillment of Aryanism, and Nietzche it’s prophet.

  • Alex Weaver

    By lies I mean that it is false information and generally known to be false among people familiar with the subject. This means that someone in the chain of transmission of that particular meme either knowingly made false claims or, perhaps more likely, made rhetorically convenient claims with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

    This does not imply that the person in question was you. (Though it is surprising to me that you’ve managed to engage with the rationalist community/ies for as long as you’ve been posting here without encountering a refutation of the claimed Darwin-Hitler link). Don’t take things so personally.

  • Abambagibus

    Your venom against the evils of Christianity and Judaism is nectar to the palate of the one Monotheism in whose presence you have trodden lightly. Your hardness bids you to treat softly what you subliminally must know to be true. Otherwise you’d be all over it with the very virulence with which you attack the lesser monotheisms. Unwittingly you are guided by the one true God, apparently.

  • Alex Weaver

    Your venom against the evils of Christianity and Judaism is nectar to the palate of the one Monotheism in whose presence you have trodden lightly. Your hardness bids you to treat softly what you subliminally must know to be true. Otherwise you’d be all over it with the very virulence with which you attack the lesser monotheisms. Unwittingly you are guided by the one true God, apparently.

    You’re right. Adam is one of His Noodliness‘ greatest prophets, knowingly or otherwise.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    It’s true. Blessed be His noodly appendage, Ramen.

  • Peter N

    Abambagibus,

    I think you’re suggesting that we are all dissing Jehovah of the ancient Israelites and secretly praising Mohammed — but since you don’t come out and say it clearly, I can’t tell for sure. If so, please read this:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/10/maybe-jesus-will-save-us-after-all

  • Peter N

    Oops, oops, oops — that link didn’t work the way I thought it would. I meant, read this post:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/10/maybe-jesus-will-save-us-after-all

  • Scotlyn

    I hate to dignify any of cl’s offerings with a reply, but this

    I’ll postulate off the cuff that Hitler certainly embraced more Darwinism than Neitzche

    can really be laid to rest once and for all by perusing this account of the books scheduled to be burned in 1935 by the Nazis – “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)” Item no. 6 on the 5th document at the link. (Hat-tip to PZ Myers blog where this link featured in an entry from Dec 17th inst.)

    Although not strictly relevant, I loved noting the following proscribed item on the list which was 7. “Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn)”. The Nazis clearly wanted their art nice and bloody – or not at all.

  • http://na shlomoh

    Governor Perry of Texas is being silly again. No, as a matter of fact, he is being stupid again, and his stupidity takes the same form as it took when George W. Bush was being stupid. It’s all about the J man, or as I call Yeshua, brother J.

    Perry says he is not ashamed to say that he is a Christian. Wow! I know so many people who say they are ashamed to be Jews! But at least that’s understandable. Jews have gotten a raw deal from Christians for many years. When I was 6, a little Catholic boy told me that the Jews killed God. I thought, Oh so that’s why we can’t see Him. He’s a ghost. Well in Christianity, part of Him is a ghost, a ghost that you can’t see, as Gordon Lightfoot used to say.

    Well now Christmas is upon us once again. You rememebr Christmas. in case you don’t, it’s the holiday on which the guards at Auschwitz sat around singing songs about a make believe little Jewish baby while they were burning REAL Jewish babies in the oven instead of Yule cake.

    Be that as it may, the new thing among those wild and crazy Christians is that Christmas, the goyish version of CHANUKAH, is under attack. It is? What, he can’t observe
    Christmas? is the Grinch alive and kicking? Everywhere you look, there’s Christmas. What’s he talking about? No, Jews are under attack, attack from those silly little men and women who think they know the Jews’ relgion better than Jews know it. It has do be the most CHUTSPADIK claim that ever existed.

    And when do you hear that extraordinary claim? When the Christian is trying to tell the Jew he is on the wrong track. he tells the Jew that his ignorant “legalistic”
    religion will lead him straight to hell, AND that’s why it’s important for that Christian to missionize Jews, and put them on the right track. Jews have had to put up with that ignorant and insulting hogwash for many years. Yes, it is hogwash so it’s TREYF bull doody. The message is that once a Jew accepts the Nazarene magician as the
    messiah, he is “completed.” So I have to ask: Am I really incomplete? What do they expect? ….. that my foreskin will grow back once I accept the MAMZER? I know that there once was a real jewish man who lived in Galilee and taught TORAH to his fellow Jews and was executed as a rebel against Rome. But that’s not the guy they are talkign about. No, the one they are talking about is the guy hanging on the wall. In fact, that guy isn’t even a real person. He’s either a baby lying in a manger or a guy dying on a cross. He’s usually not a living Jewish person with something valuable to say.

    So the silly little missionary will tell a Jew that he has to be “saved” or go to Hell when he dies. And their view of salvation is believing that someone who lived and died long ago was and is the Jewish messiah. Jews are simply too ignorant, willfull, stiffnecked, blind, diabolical or [you fill in other adjectives] to accept the truth. And from whom do they get this pernicious idea? From the Tarsian Charlatan historically known as Saul of Tarsus, and later, Paul the Apostle. We prefer Paul the
    Apostate. But Paul can only be called an apostate if he were Jewish, and we have no definitive proof that he was. And if he was, he disassociated himself from Jewishness soon after beginning his benighted mission.

  • Pingback: Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? | A. J. MacDonald, Jr.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X