The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[Omniskeptical]

I do not believe cynicism is the issue. Apparently the argument presented by Jesus and converted Jews to most Jews of the time was not convincing, except to the Gentiles of Rome. By~600 AD there were few Jewish Christians. Yes, Jews, Baha'is and Muslims will not accept the Trinitarian belief in the nature of God, but that should not inspire nor justify violence against those that believe differently. Muslims consider the Baha'i Faith to be Heretical even though they are both share the same Monotheism, and in most Muslim countries the punishment for being a Baha'i is death.

Cynicism is most certainly the issue. Some Jews don't believe in the afterlife; and most don't understand how even with God's help, as if that kind help existed today, that Jesus's suggestions are the least which is necessary for bringing peace. And yet the apostles had opponents who were wicked, making the suggestions of Jesus useless on them.

[shunyadragon]

Cynicism is most certainly the issue. Some Jews don't believe in the afterlife; and most don't understand how even with God's help, as if that kind help existed today, that Jesus's suggestions are the least which is necessary for bringing peace. And yet the apostles had opponents who were wicked, making the suggestions of Jesus useless on them.

Cynicism is a personal thing, and should not be an issue. Anyone may be cynical about anything. It is more simply a matter of believing yes and no. Go back and follow this line of thinking and where your going with this.

When Judaism stops its quest to tell Christians that their traditions are all completely false and its book; you will see a lot less hostility towards Jews. Jews ask the same thing of us. Who has the double standard now?

I would also like to note that in the NT, the Jews are usually Judai, and that the book concerns itself with Israel rather than Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. The appearance of anti-Jewish passages are actually anti-Herod, and anti-Pharisee.

Nothing here justifies hostility or violence toward another religion, particularly Judaism. Just because one is cynical does not warrant any such violence nor hostility either.

[OU812]

Apparently the argument presented by Jesus and converted Jews to most Jews of the time was not convincing, except to the Gentiles of Rome.

No.

[KingsGambit]

Currently I'm reading John: The Maverick Gospel by Robert Kysar. Despite the fact that Kysar was a Christian, he thought the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic because of the author's use of Jews, and that we should try to downplay it/minimize it today, and that those parts weren't inspired. Kysar mentioned that some have suggested that "Jews" is better understood as "Judeans" but didn't take the idea very seriously. I think that's a shame; I really do think that's the solution here and there is no reason to accuse an entire book of the Bible of anti-Semitism.

[shunyadragon]

Currently I'm reading John: The Maverick Gospel by Robert Kysar. Despite the fact that Kysar was a Christian, he thought the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic because of the author's use of Jews, and that we should try to downplay it/minimize it today, and that those parts weren't inspired. Kysar mentioned that some have suggested that "Jews" is better understood as "Judeans" but didn't take the idea very seriously. I think that's a shame; I really do think that's the solution here and there is no reason to accuse an entire book of the Bible of anti-Semitism.

Why the accusation, well, ah . . . history is a witness. No the accusation does not concern the whole book.

[KingsGambit]

Why the accusation, well, ah . . . history is a witness. No the accusation does not concern the whole book.

It's a Christian scholar making that accusation

[shunyadragon]

It's a Christian scholar making that accusation

OK, but this does not really change anything. Religions are set in history and history reflects the nature of the religion. Yes, different scholars can come to different conclusions based on how the selectively emphasize different parts of the New Testament. Nonetheless, there sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.

[robrecht]

OK, but this does not really change anything. Religions are set in history and history reflects the nature of the religion. Yes, different scholars can come to different conclusions based on how the selectively emphasize different parts of the New Testament. Nonetheless, there sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.

At the very least it demonstrates that Christians (and followers of other religions) can engage in honest, critical thinking about their scriptures, history and current praxis. By the way, I have never seen you engage or express any critical thought regarding the Baha'i faith.

[Truthseeker]

sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.

The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

[KingsGambit]

The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

He was more getting at that it has occurred throughout Christian history. Even my seminary class acknowledges this, and a class I took in college on the Holocaust extensively documented how this frequently happened via pogroms during the Middle Ages. None of this means that it was actually biblically justified, just that it happened.

[shunyadragon]

The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

It is far more then instances if anti-Judaism (not truly anti-Semitic). How about Matthew. There is also the compounded problems in citations in John, the letters, Revelation and Mark as well. You may defend the quotes in Mark as in defense of Jesus and not anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic) but the putting all the citations in context represents an anti-Jewish scenario, which resulted in many cases of wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing, ethnic hatred and negative stereotypes.

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

[shunyadragon]

At the very least it demonstrates that Christians (and followers of other religions) can engage in honest, critical thinking about their scriptures, history and current praxis. By the way, I have never seen you engage or express any critical thought regarding the Baha'i faith.

Three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave, and avoiding the subject, scripture, and evidence concerning the thread by creating mindless diversions not relevant to the subject.

[robrecht]

Three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave, and avoiding the subject, scripture, and evidence concerning the thread by creating mindless diversions not relevant to the subject.

You are ignorant of the fact that I have not at all avoided the subject. I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. Precisely because I deplore religious bigotry, Christian and otherwise, in all its forms, I will also note it wherever it occurs. You do not condemn the anti-semitic remarks of Baha'i and, in fact, are never critical of any aspect of the Baha'i faith. This is why you open yourself up to the criticisms of hypocrisy and your Baha'i apologetic stance as 'boosterism'.

[shunyadragon]

You are ignorant of the fact that I have not at all avoided the subject. I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. Precisely because I deplore religious bigotry, Christian and otherwise, in all its forms, I will also note it wherever it occurs. You do not condemn the anti-semitic remarks of Baha'i and, in fact, are never critical of any aspect of the Baha'i faith. This is why you open yourself up to the criticisms of hypocrisy and your Baha'i apologetic stance as 'boosterism'.

Your posts are a witness of your avoidance and changing the subject in this thread.

Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?

[robrecht]

Your posts are a witness of your avoidance and changing the subject in this thread.

Untrue, I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. I have never avoided this topic. I did add the aspect of trying to get you to be self-critical of the Baha'i faith, as are many Christians regarding their faith. You do not seem to be able to do this.

Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?

Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.