Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

    Here is a great little article written by Daniel B. Wallace exploring the charge of Anti-Semitism in the NT, enjoy:

    https://bible.org/article/jew-first-...-anti-semitism
    Last edited by Scrawly; 11-05-2014, 10:43 PM.

  • #2
    A good article from a good scholar.

    My seminary professor assigned an article a couple weeks ago that took a different tack altogether. The argument was that the word "Jews" in NT contexts is anachronistic because modern Judaism in its form did not exist then, and rather "Judeans" would be a more accurate translation, geographically limiting the context of the mentioned verses. I am not sure this works with the verse in Revelation where Jesus talks about the "synagogue of Satan" (and I'm surprised Wallace didn't mention it). (Of course, we know quite obviously that Jesus did not hate Jews...)
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
      -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
      1 Corinthians 16:13

      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
      -Ben Witherington III

      Comment


      • #4
        It's kind of like, it's ok for black people to call each other the "N" word, but not ok and racist for white people to do it. Jewish rabbis routinely teach that Jews were to blame for destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and Rome, but if Gentiles or their New Testament -- because it is mostly accepted by Gentile Christians not Jews -- do much the same, it's often considered antisemitic.

        A decent Jewish summary of how Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Sicarii were divided and hating each other, where if they had been seeking God instead they may have been prospering for 2000 years instead of exiled and persecuted:
        While the First Temple was destroyed due to idol worship, illicit relationships and murder, our Sages attribute the destruction of the Second Temple to the baseless hatred that prevailed among the Jews. If the Jews had been united, they would have merited G‑d's protection. They would have withstood the Romans. It was the factionalism among Jews that ultimately brought about the destruction of the Second Temple. -Chabad

        The NT simply illustrates this idea further that because of their hatred of each other, they also hated the Messiah who could have united them under God in an everlasting kingdom free of Gentile control, so it's no more antisemitic than what Jews say themselves. The OT/Tanach is filled with condemnations of unrighteous Jews as idolatrous harlots and wicked anyway, and is much harsher on them than the NT is.

        For those reasons I think the bible.org article goes too far in trying to be politically correct by taking nearly all the heat off Jews with statements like, "Are the Jews the only ones responsible for the death of Jesus? Hardly. From a divine perspective, we could say that God is responsible..." Chabad and other Jewish sources don't even whitewash 1st century events that much.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
          ..those reasons I think the bible.org article goes too far in trying to be politically correct by taking nearly all the heat off Jews with statements like, "Are the Jews the only ones responsible for the death of Jesus? Hardly. From a divine perspective, we could say that God is responsible..." Chabad and other Jewish sources don't even whitewash 1st century events that much..
          I don't think Wallace was trying to whitewash anything. The Bible does teach that it was the will of God for Jesus to die a sacrificial death. Jesus himself stated: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father. (John. 10:17-18).

          Comment


          • #6
            Well you can look at it like God wants everyone to be tortured and killed as a martyr. Or you can see it how it really is, God would rather not, but He rewards those who are.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
              Well you can look at it like God wants everyone to be tortured and killed as a martyr. Or you can see it how it really is, God would rather not, but He rewards those who are.
              Sorry, what? I was talking about Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, thereby fulfilling the will of the Father. So, as Wallace stated, from a divine perspective, God was ultimately indeed responsible.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                Sorry, what? I was talking about Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, thereby fulfilling the will of the Father. So, as Wallace stated, from a divine perspective, God was ultimately indeed responsible.
                Nope, if you are atheist and your peers committed crimes you knew about, and they told you to shut up about them and you didn't, and they killed you for it, they would still be at fault.

                So the will of the Father was not shutting up, the blame still goes to the killers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                  Nope, if you are atheist and your peers committed crimes you knew about, and they told you to shut up about them and you didn't, and they killed you for it, they would still be at fault.

                  So the will of the Father was not shutting up, the blame still goes to the killers.
                  "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts. 4:27-28).

                  Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible comments:

                  "..For to do whatsoever thy hand...It was not the end of their gathering together against Christ, or it was not their intention and design, to fulfil the purposes and decrees of God, but to fulfil their own lusts, and satiate their rage and malice against him; but it was so in the event, according to the wise disposal of providence, that by their gathering together, by their consultations and conspiracies, they brought about what God in his everlasting council had decreed.."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    PS: I am not absolving those who put Christ to death of their responsibility. I believe they are guilty. I am merely highlighting the death of Christ from God's perspective, as taught in the Scriptures - His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins.
                    Last edited by Scrawly; 11-08-2014, 06:08 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The easiest way to debunk this argument is to compare the New Testament to the Old testament, where Israel and the Jewish people are continuously reviled and compared to whores, harlots, adulterers (Ezekiel is practically pornographic in its castigation). We know for a fact the Old Testament was written by Jews so antisemitism can't be the issue.
                      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Also, Paul says that he loves the Jewish people so much that he wishes he could give up his own salvation for theirs. That's not exactly what I call a hatred for the Jews.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts. 4:27-28).

                          Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible comments:

                          "..For to do whatsoever thy hand...It was not the end of their gathering together against Christ, or it was not their intention and design, to fulfil the purposes and decrees of God, but to fulfil their own lusts, and satiate their rage and malice against him; but it was so in the event, according to the wise disposal of providence, that by their gathering together, by their consultations and conspiracies, they brought about what God in his everlasting council had decreed.."
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          PS: I am not absolving those who put Christ to death of their responsibility. I believe they are guilty. I am merely highlighting the death of Christ from God's perspective, as taught in the Scriptures - His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins.
                          I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it. The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.

                          Jesus didn't have to die either, he could have run off or bowed to Jews and Romans. But he prayed in Gethsemane to align his will with God's and went on to be martyred. It wasn't made to happen in that sense, but an omniscient God knew it would happen.

                          So I have a problem with using "responsibility" in the same context since it amounts to arguments like this:

                          Parents are responsible for procreating children they know will probably do wrong and eventually die. Thus parents are responsible for wrongdoing and deaths of their children.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                            I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it.
                            Why would God having foreknowledge be a good point if He does not have the power to determine the future of the universe anyway (either that, or the universe is determinate right from its beginning anyway)? If indeed the future is fixed though we cannot know that directly, does that not render nugatory whatever willpower we have?


                            The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.
                            Offer? What offer? Didn't Jesus pray, Father, your will be done? (Oh, I see you did mention that, just below in your post.)
                            Last edited by Truthseeker; 11-09-2014, 05:31 PM.
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              Why would God having foreknowledge be a good point if He does not have the power to determine the future of the universe anyway (either that, or the universe is determinate right from its beginning anyway)?
                              Where God "responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised" means God can intervene on human free will to direct it to a conclusion. Just because we have free will doesn't mean we can change the endgame, for example, willing ourselves never to die. We can exercise free will in the meantime, but for most of us, the end is going to be the same no matter what we want.

                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              If indeed the future is fixed though we cannot know that directly, does that not render nugatory whatever willpower we have?
                              The past, present, and future are always going to be fixed and are always going to be what they are going to be, in that sense. Anyone knowing about it or not. That doesn't mean our free will can't shape what they're going to be.

                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              Offer? What offer? Didn't Jesus pray, Father, your will be done? (Oh, I see you did mention that, just below in your post.)
                              It would be the offer Jesus was praying about, yes.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X