The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[shunyadragon]

Still not specific enough and anachronistic. Conflict between Jesus and some of his disciples with other Jews and other factions of his followers probably arose during Jesus' lifetime. Certainly after his death, there were Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah with various viewpoints and multiple Jewish groups who did not accept Jesus as Messiah. As Gentiles were added, there were additional viewpoints, incorporating a wide range of attitudes toward the various Judaisms of the time.

These are not the conflicts that resulted in the history of the conflicts, persecution and ethnic cleansing that began with Constantine and continued for 1800+ years. The exception is the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the Resurrection by Jews. The NT as compiled at that time and contained the distinct anti-Jewish statements and concepts that inspired the history of violence against Jews.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

Gospel of Matthew

Main article: Rejection of Jesus

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[Matt 21:42] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:


"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"—Matthew 23:31-33

Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Shelly Matthews writes:


"In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent."[8]

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[9]


"Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation."

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

These are not the conflicts that resulted in the history of the conflicts, persecution and ethnic cleansing that began with Constantine and continued for 1800+ years. The exception is the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the Resurrection by Jews. The NT as compiled at that time and contained the distinct anti-Jewish statements and concepts that inspired the history of violence against Jews.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

Gospel of Matthew

Main article: Rejection of Jesus

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[Matt 21:42] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:


"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"—Matthew 23:31-33

Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Shelly Matthews writes:


"In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent."[8]

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[9]


"Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation."

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]

© Copyright Original Source

You asked about period in which the New Testament was being written. Using later interpretations of much earlier texts, even earlier sources, and evolving usage of terms is anachronistic. You need a hermeneutic that is better supported by good historical method and scholarship.

[shunyadragon]

You asked about period in which the New Testament was being written. Using later interpretations of much earlier texts, even earlier sources, and evolving usage of terms is anachronistic. You need a hermeneutic that is better supported by good historical method and scholarship.

The earlier texts before ~200 - ~400 AD are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns. The argument as I described before, begins with Constantine concerning NT referenced above, and that is what the is considered sacred text through the anti-Jewish Christian history in question.

I did not 'ask about' this earlier period where the known texts are insufficient for any argument either way.

[robrecht]

The earlier texts before ~200 - ~400 AD are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns. The argument as I described before, begins with Constantine concerning NT referenced above, and that is what the is considered sacred text through the anti-Jewish Christian history in question.

I did not 'ask about' this earlier period where the known texts are insufficient for any argument either way.

You asked about the New Testament, which must be understood in its historical context. Otherwise, you will continue to use New Testament texts in an anachronistic manner.

[shunyadragon]

You asked about the New Testament, which must be understood in its historical context. Otherwise, you will continue to use New Testament texts in an anachronistic manner.

Yea, I asked about the NT, but the NT did not exist prior to ~200 AD. The historical context and the anti-Jewishness of the NT began with Constantine and the compilation of the NT as we no it.

[robrecht]

Yea, I asked about the NT, but the NT did not exist prior to ~200 AD. The historical context and the anti-Jewishness of the NT began with Constantine and the compilation of the NT as we [kn]no[w] it.

You need to educate yourself on New Testament scholarship. If you want to understand the texts of the New Testament, you needed to study them in the historical context in which they were written. If you only want to discuss the canon of the New Testament after it was relatively fixed and universal, your use of New Testament texts will continue to be anachronistic.

[Omniskeptical]

Huh?!?!?!



All over terminology and history like a shotgun affair, and does not address the question.

The period of the history of Christianity I would reference would begin with Constantine to the modern times of the 20th Century.





Does not answer the question at all. Splitting frog hairs on terminology. I prefer anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism as reasonably interchangeable. Anti-Semitism does not work because the issue is not Semites.

I didn't suspect you had a comprehension problem. You haven't even taken into account how the Jews and the Muslims used to be close. And they were.

[shunyadragon]

You need to educate yourself on New Testament scholarship. If you want to understand the texts of the New Testament, you needed to study them in the historical context in which they were written. If you only want to discuss the canon of the New Testament after it was relatively fixed and universal, your use of New Testament texts will continue to be anachronistic.

Your creating a high fog index to avoid the issues of the thread. If you wish to add anything of scholarship that contributes to this subject please do. The facts of historical persecution, ethnic cleansing in the name of Christianity for over 1700 years based on the citations I provided are very real and factual. The New Testament they used was their reference. How the references became as they are may be of some value if you wish to provide an enlightened view, please do.

What then is your explanation, if not the NT text and beliefs, then what?

[robrecht]

Your creating a high fog index to avoid the issues of the thread. If you wish to add anything of scholarship that contributes to this subject please do. The facts of historical persecution, ethnic cleansing in the name of Christianity for over 1700 years based on the citations I provided are very real and factual. The New Testament they used was their reference. How the references became as they are may be of some value if with to pro vide an enlightened view, please do.

What then is your explanation, if not the NT text and beliefs, then what?

The issue is simply if you want to understand texts in their original historical contexts or if you merely want to focus on later, anachronistic interpretations in entirely different sociological environments. When the texts were being written, the Jewish Christians were mostly involved in polemics as the upstart party without power and subject to abuse by Jewish religious authorities. Some of the same texts were later used by Christian religious and secular authorities to oppress Jewish minorities that no longer had the upper hand. I have avoided nothing.

[shunyadragon]

The issue is simply if you want to understand texts in their original historical contexts or if you merely want to focus on later, anachronistic interpretations in entirely different sociological environments. When the texts were being written, the Jewish Christians were mostly involved in polemics as the upstart party without power and subject to abuse by Jewish religious authorities. Some of the same texts were later used by Christian religious and secular authorities to oppress Jewish minorities that no longer had the upper hand. I have avoided nothing.

First, it is not my interpretation that is the one in question. It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews.

The persecution began with Constantine, and oppression by Jewish authorities in the early years was not the main issue described in the NT references. Over 1700 years of persecution and ethnic cleansing cannot be explained away by this. The reasons cited most often is that Jews are ones responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and the rejection of the claims of Jesus. The passion plays of Europe describing the Jews as 'Christ killers.' This is based on NT scripture and not early persecution of Christians by Jews. In fact the degree and intensity of this claim is questionable since the principle source of persecution in the early years was by Rome for both Christians and Jews. I believe this reflects the best facts of history.

Oh yea, you have avoided the issue with side bars.

[robrecht]

First, it is not my interpretation that is the one in question.

I never said it was, but it is the interpretation you are referring to.

It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews.

There is no argument about this.

The persecution began with Constantine, and oppression by Jewish authorities in the early years was not the main issue described in the NT references.

First, Constantine did not write the New Testament. Second, there are always (at least) two sides of every polemic. Third, the Jewish Christians who saw themselves as persecuted by Jewish authorities interpreted such as taking up their own cross and following in Christ's footsteps so the issue of Jesus martyrdom and the persecution of his followers by Jewish authorities were inextricably related by authors of the New Testament.

Over 1700 years of persecution and ethnic cleansing cannot be explained away by this.

I have not explained anything away; I have merely tried to get you to be more specific and better informed about the differences between the original texts in their historical contexts and later interpretations in much different historical and sociological contexts.

The reasons cited most often is that Jews are ones responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and the rejection of the claims of Jesus.

Inextricably related, as explained above.

The passion plays of Europe describing the Jews as 'Christ killers.' This is based on NT scripture and not early persecution of Christians by Jews.

I never said it did. You are still failing to distinguish between different historical contexts. Anachronistic.

In fact the degree and intensity of this claim is questionable since the principle source of persecution in the early years was by Rome for both Christians and Jews. I believe this reflects the best facts of history.

Again, you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you imagine is my 'claim'.

Oh yea, you have avoided the issue with side bars.

Properly understanding texts in their original context is the single, central issue of this thread.

[Omniskeptical]

It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews.

But the interpretation can be--is proven to be 100 percent wrong. And the term Jew is not synonymous with the word Israelite in the New Testament.

[shunyadragon]

But the interpretation can be--is proven to be 100 percent wrong.

HUH?!?!?!!? No references, nothing 100 % proven either way.

. . . and the term Jew is not synonymous with the word Israelite in the New Testament.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska?

In reality Israelites are Jews. Jews of the New Testament and the Old Testament are the ancestors of most of the Jews today.

You need to explain how this is even remotely an issue.

[Omniskeptical]

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska?

The word ιουδαιοι doesn't need to be referenced. Stop being lazy and look at the Greek.

In reality Israelites are Jews. Jews of the New Testament and the Old Testament are the ancestors of most of the Jews today.

"Jews" is really Judai-- those of Judah.

You need to explain how this is even remotely an issue.

In reality and modern context, there is nothing showing the Israelites becoming Judai only, thus you show your ignorance of the entire issue.

[shunyadragon]

The word ιουδαιοι doesn't need to be referenced. Stop being lazy and look at the Greek.

"Jews" is really Judai-- those of Judah.

I am uncertain how picking at terminology has any meaning here. The term Israelite is a modern term for the Jewish citizens of Israel. There are Jews all over the world and throughout history mostly descendants of the Jews of the Middle East in the OT and the NT. So what?!?!?!?

In reality and modern context, there is nothing showing the Israelites becoming Judai only, thus you show your ignorance of the entire issue.

Jews became Israelites with the founding of the state of Israel. You need to give a better explanation how this is relevant to the issue at hand.

Simply the Jews of Europe and the rest of the world are the descendants of the Jews of the tribes of Palestine region, and of course the Jews of New and Old Testaments.