Jesus and the money changers

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Seeing that the Jews collaborated with the muslims in the muslim conquest of Spain for 781 years and helped them to fight against the Crusaders maybe the other folks had a reason to be pissed at them.

[Purplundy]

Hey, grow the fuck up. In case you haven't guessed by now...you seem a little slow up the uptake...I don't give a shit about your language sensibilities, in fact I find them amusing.

If you think your fucking gospels are not the root cause of anti-semitism in Europe you are an idiot. Take your jesus blinders off and look around.

Maybe you need to hear this from one of your own fucking heroes?

The problem isn't your language, it's that you're hiding behind it to avoid simple questions.
Martin Luther didn't write the Bible and, I case you haven't noticed, he isn't exactly my role model…either you lack a basic understanding of European history or you didn't notice what I listed as my religion.

But cut the chit chat. Answer the question with something besides, "You're stupid if you don't agree with me." Which is, by the way, not only a mature but quite rational point to make.

[Minimalist]

I don't know, nor care, who your role model is.

But do try to understand that this shit continues to the present.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...98,00.html

Who is to blame for the sexual abuse affairs in the Catholic Church? The Jews, at least according to an Italian bishop, which suggested that Jews were behind the current criticism of the Church's record on tackling clerical sex abuse, British newspaper The Guardian reported Sunday.


An Italian website quoted Giacomo Babini, 81, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.


Babini was quoted by Catholic website Pontifex as saying: "They do not want the Church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."

[Purplundy]

I am fully aware that antisemitism exists because of the Bible.
If you'd like to actually prove that the Bible's writers were antisemites, be my guest.

[Aractus]

I am fully aware that antisemitism exists because of the Bible.
If you'd like to actually prove that the Bible's writers were antisemites, be my guest.

Some scribes can be proven were.

[Minimalist]

Wiki is all you are worth, purp. You don't want to learn anyway.

Gospel of Mark

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' crucifixion was authorized by Roman authorities at the insistence of leading Jews (Judeans) from the Sanhedrin.[Mark 15:1-15]

Paul H. Jones writes:[7]

Although Mark depicts all of the Jewish groups united in their opposition to Jesus, his passion narratives are not "overtly" anti-Jewish, since they can be interpreted as falling within the range of "acceptable" intra-Jewish disputes. To some readers, the "cleansing of the Temple" scene (11:15-19) framed by the "withered fig tree" pericopes confirms God's judgment against the Jews and their Temple. Most likely, however, the story explains for this small sect of Jesus followers that survived the Roman-Jewish War why God permitted the destruction of the Temple. It is an in-house interpretation and, therefore, not anti-Jewish. Likewise, the parable of the vineyard (12:1-12), by which the traditional allegorical interpretation casts the tenants as the Jews, the murdered heir as Jesus, and the owner as God, must be set within the context of an intra-Jewish dispute.

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]
Gospel of John

The Gospel of John collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews". In none of the other gospels do "the Jews" demand, en masse, the death of Jesus; instead, the plot to put him to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees. John's gospel is thus the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in the Christian mind.[10]

For example, in John 7:1-9 Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42, and 12:36-43. John 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the Synagogue. After the crucifixion, 20:19 has the disciples hiding behind locked doors, "for fear of the Jews".

In several places John's gospel also associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. In John 8:37-39;[11] 44-47,[12] Jesus says, speaking to a group of Pharisees:

"I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God."

John's use of the term 'Jews' is a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship. Some scholars argue that the author most likely considered himself Jewish and was probably speaking to a largely Jewish community.[13] New Testament scholar J.G. Dunn writes:

"The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism."[14]

Because of this controversy some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations. For example, the Jesus Seminar translates this as "Judeans", i.e. residents of Judea, in contrast to residents of Galilee. Most critics of these translations, while conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred.[citation needed]

Paul Jones writes:

"The Gospel of John has the dubious distinction of being both the most popular Gospel (considered the most "spiritual" of the canonical Gospels) and the most anti-Jewish. The term "the Jews" (Ioudaios) in the Gospel functions as a "hostile collective stereotype" and is identified with "evil" and the "devil." Yet the Gospel of John is intimately connected with Judaism. Jesus is thoroughly Jewish in this Gospel. His life revolves around the Jewish festivals, and his identity as the Messiah is confirmed by the Jewish scriptures. According to John 20:31, the book was written so "that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God." Christology, therefore, is the key to understanding both the theology of the Gospel and its strained relationship with the larger Pharisaic Jewish tradition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitis...el_of_Mark

Oh and btw, fucking 'luke' is no slouch, either.

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” [17] [a]

18 But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”

23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23

[Purplundy]

Wiki is all you are worth, purp.

No, Wiki is all you have. After dodging my questions, you used a Wikipedia chunk as a red herring. You can be as rude as you like behind your computer screen, but that's not going to change anything.
So we're going to go back to my last question and if you answer it, I'll happily comb through your Wikipedia article, although it's an appeal to very little authority.
"If I told a story about a gay man being stoned to death in Uganda by Ugandans (most of whom are black), am I racist?"

[Brakeman]

The early church fathers that were instrumental in bringing christianity to the christians on this forum were peppered with hatred for jews. (Known by their fruit?)

The strongest attacks on Jews and Judaism by the Church Fathers are to be found in the Homilies of Chrysostom (347-407 C.E.) in his Antioch sermons. He is considered to be among the most beloved and admired in Church history. His name translates in Greek as St. John the Golden Mouthed. His discourses were prompted by the fact that many Christians were meeting on friendly terms with Jews, visiting Jewish homes, and attending their synagogues. Chrysostom said:

"The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan....they are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition."44

"The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen."45

"The synagogue is a curse, obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear, she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished with herself the light of the Holy Spirit."46

Chrysostom further said that the Jews had become a degenerate race because of their "odious assassination of Christ for which crime there is no expiation possible, no indulgence, no pardon, and for which they will always be a people without a nation, enduring a servitude without end."47

He elaborated further on God's punishment of the Jews:

"But it was men, says the Jew, who brought these misfortunes upon us, not God. On the contrary, it was in fact God who brought them about. If you attribute them to men, reflect again that even supposing men had dared, they could not have had the power to accomplish them, unless it had been God's will...Men would certainly not have made war unless God had permitted them...Is it not obvious that it was because God hated you and rejected you once for all?"48

On another occasion Chrysostom is quoted as saying "I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews."49

Chrysostom's Homilies were to be used in seminaries and schools for centuries as model sermons, with the result that his message of hate would be passed down to succeeding generations of theologians. The nineteenth century Protestant cleric R. S. Storr called him "one of the most eloquent preachers who ever since apostolic times have brought to men the divine tidings of truth and love." A contemporary of Storr, the great theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman, described Chrysostom as a "bright, cheerful, gentle soul, a sensitive heart..."50

http://www.sandrawilliams.org/ANTI/anti-semitism.html

Now, as most every christian you'll find will say that theirs is a "personal relationship" with Christ and are regularly guided by the holy spirit, how is it that these early church fathers who were supposedly so guided as tools of god to reach the world and the future generations, would not have been guided against jewish hatred? How could jesus consistently forget to tell the early church followers to "chill?"

[Minimalist]

No, Wiki is all you have.

I'm not your fucking secretary, jerkoff. Check out the footnotes if you wish or don't as I expect you would shriek in horror from anything that cast aspersions on your fucking fairy tales.


Do keep in mind that your silly-assed bible doesn't have footnotes to back it up. In fact, it has nothing to back it up. Still. That doesn't stop morons from swearing that it is true.

[Purplundy]

How is it that these early church fathers who were supposedly so guided as tools of god to reach the world and the future generations, would not have been guided against jewish hatred? How could jesus consistently forget to tell the early church followers to "chill?"

Jesus never told anyone to hate anyone, especially because the Gospels describe him as being very Jewish.
As for his posthumous antisemitic followers, clearly God doesn't do mind control. Jews became a minority, and they became persecuted by the rising Christian majority.

---

Do keep in mind that your silly-assed bible doesn't have footnotes to back it up. In fact, it has nothing to back it up. Still. That doesn't stop morons from swearing that it is true.

Well, that's too bad for them. There are lots of untrue stuff in the Bible.

"If I told a story about a gay man being stoned to death in Uganda by Ugandans (most of whom are black), am I racist?"