Are Christians responsible for the hatred of Jews today?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry this took so long, but you know, I actually have a life beyond posting on WP. It seems I have to apologize for an error on my part - Luther's change of heart was not on his deathbed, but rather, his final sermon shortly before his death.
Here, a quote can be found on this link:
www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/lutherjew.html
While this is only a quote, it is based on a biographic source.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You do know that Rockwell had been shot by a fellow Nazi, don't you? The other loony-tune argued heatedly with Rockwell over if blond Nazis like him were superior to dark haired Nazis like that sour faced little man. Rockwell at the time of his murder had been on his way to do his wash.
A part Jewish friend of mine laughed out loud over the thought that a Nazi got shot with his dirty underwear.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That quote was clearly made up by antisemites. It's hilarious that they try to attribute it to Einstein considering he was himself a Jew who had to fight against antisemitism for much of his life.

It's interesting that racists feel the need to knowingly concoct lies like this. Perhaps deep down they realize just how immoral their ideology is, and that the only way they can sell it to others - or even to themselves - is by hiding the truth.

Reprehensible racism topic

The more I read such racist vomit, the more I wonder just who would think that an rational human being would believe it. Albert Einstein never said this, as DrizzleMan has already pointed out. There are no printable words to describe the idiocy of this shite.

Salonfilosoof:

I sent you a PM

It's interesting that DrizzleMan, who does not have Aspergers Syndrome, and who has not made any other posts in about 8 months, should feel the need to post this. Perhaps he could volunteer for the jewish internet defence force, if he has not dones so already.

DrizzleMan, is the fact that Einstein was jewish your "proof" that the quote above was made up?

With a little searching, I have come across a blog entry (here) that provides scans of the 1938 Collier's Magazine article where the quote was taken from.

This blog itself, it seems, is not devoted to promoting so-called "antisemitism" but to opposing it (in particular, to opposing the antisemitism of a Catholic theologian called Robert Sungenis, whom I had previously never heard of).

The blog essentially argues that instead of reading:

"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world... the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity"

The quote should read:

"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. ... The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world... the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity"

Because the first and second sentences were separated by several other sentences.

For the first sentence see the 10th paragraph on the page here and for the second sentence see the fourth paragraph on the page here

Of course, it could be possible that this blog and the scans it links to are just the fabrications of an "anti-semite" masquerading as something else.



Sartresue is angry topic.

Anything to add now, sartresue?

The Jews do have a problem in that their religion is anti-Christian at the source, in that it is the religion of those people who rejected the divinity of Christ. They also did not work as hard to appeal to the downtrodden as the Christians did which caused them to lose the battle for converts in the centuries immediately following the schism, so to speak. The Christians of course accomplished the ultimate coup in getting the Roman Empire to establish Christianity. The Jews did get the Khazar Empire later on but that wasn't the prize that the Roman Empire was. It did allow for a large Jewish population in a region near to where Hitler could get his hands on them.

How could Judaism be anti-Christian at its source if it predates Christianity? For a long time Christianity was just another among many cults in the empire...
Additionally the fact that Christianity was chosen was more down to random chance then efforts of the Christians themselves.. For a time I would say it seemed more likely that Mithraism would be the empire's religion. Additionally once it became the religion of the empire, it was taken out of the hands of Christians and into the hands of those interested in maintaining peace in the empire at whatever cost, thus you see many pre-Christian traditions assimilated and renamed to satisfy earlier groups. It was all partially in answer to the crisis of the third century

Judaism is not "anti-christian". The two religions share a big chunk of scripture and philosophy. Here is how they differ.

Christians: The savior has come and his name is Jesus.
Jews: The savior has not come.

Christians: The savior is God in the flesh.
Jews: The savior will be an ordinary man.

Christians: Humans are born with an original sin from which they need saving, and are saved from this sin by accepting Jesus as the savior.

Jews: There is no original sin and the savior will not absolve people of their sins. The savior will reconstruct the temple, bring peace upon Israel, and return all jews to it.

Christians: If you are good and accept Jesus, you go to heaven, if you are bad and have not accepted Jesus, you go to hell.

Jews: Afterlife is largely irrelevant. Hell is separation from God. Heaven is the Kingdom of God, possibly on Earth, all good people are welcome as long as they adhere to certain requirements.

Christians: Must spread the gospel and actively seek converts.
Jews: Must set an example, conversion not needed.

Christians: Jesus made many aspects of the moasic law irrelevant, and we can eat pork and so on.

Jews: Jesus did not make these aspects irrelevant, and eating pork and so on is still forbidden.

And of course there are some other differences as well.

The religions are similar in most other aspects as they do share much of the same scripture.

Little is actually known about the Khazars. If any conversion did take place, it's not really clear if they were convinced to convert or their ruler decided everyone was going to convert on his own. It's also not clear if everyone converted or if it was only the ruling class.

The Khazars also later converted to Islam after their kingdom had been destroyed by the Mongols. While it's possible some Khazars, who I believe were a Turko-Iranian people, may have intermixed with other European Jews, most Jews today have Middle Eastern DNA. Meaning, the notion that most Jews of today are Khazars is a myth.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How did most Jews react to Jesus during his three and a half year ministry? The “New Testament” reveals that Jesus was extremely popular with the Jewish crowds, particularly in Galilee, where he conducted most of his ministry. (John 7:31; 8:30; 10:42; 11:45) Just five days before his arrest and execution, a Jewish crowd welcomed him into Jerusalem as the Messiah. — Matthew 21:6-11.

If the crowd welcomed Jesus as the Messiah who, then, wanted Jesus put to death? The “New Testament” notes that Jesus was unpopular with the chief priests and many of the Pharisees and Sadducees because he exposed their hypocrisy. (Matthew 21:33-46; 23:1-36) High Priest Caiaphas was one of the foremost opposers of Jesus. No doubt he had suffered personal economic loss when Jesus chased the money changers from the temple. (Mark 11:15-18) In addition, Caiaphas feared that Jesus’ popularity with the Jewish crowds would eventually lead to Roman intervention and to his personal loss of power. (John 11:45-53) Thus, the chief priests and other religious leaders plotted Jesus’ death and handed him over to a Roman court for execution. (Matthew 27:1, 2; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66–23:1) How ironic that Jesus’ popularity with the Jewish masses led to his death!

In view of Jesus’ popularity, how could a Jewish crowd clamor for his death? Since most of Jesus’ supporters were Galileans, it is possible that the crowd who wanted him dead were mainly Judeans. The Galileans tended to be warmhearted, humble, and straightforward by nature, while the Judeans tended to be haughty, rich, and highly educated, especially in Jerusalem. Significantly, Matthew reveals that the crowd was incited by “the chief priests and older men.” (Matthew 27:20) What lie could they have told the crowd so as to arouse them in this way? Was it the lie that they earlier presented at Jesus’ trial and that was repeated during Jesus’ execution, namely, that Jesus said he would destroy the temple?—Mark 14:57, 58; 15:29.

If this Jewish crowd was not the entire Jewish people, why did the apostle Peter, when speaking to a large crowd of Jews assembled some 50 days later in Jerusalem for the Festival of Weeks, say: “You fastened [Jesus] to a stake by the hand of lawless men”? (Acts 2:22, 23) Surely Peter knew that most of them had little to do with the events that led up to Jesus’ execution. So, what did Peter mean?

According to the Scriptures, an unatoned murder brought culpability not only on the murderer but also on the community that failed to bring him to justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) For example, the entire tribe of Benjamin had once been judged as bloodguilty for failure to punish a group of murderers in their midst. Although the great majority of the tribe were not directly involved in the murder, by tolerating this crime, they were condoning it and thereby bore a measure of responsibility. (Judges 20:8-48) Indeed, it has been noted that “silence gives consent.”

In a similar way, the first-century Jewish nation acquiesced in the crime of their bloodguilty leaders. By tolerating the murderous actions of the chief priests and Pharisees, the entire nation shared responsibility. No doubt this was why Peter called upon his Jewish audience to show remorse. Similar responsibility has been noted in modern times as well. Not all citizens of Nazi Germany were directly involved in Jewish and other atrocities. Nevertheless, Germany recognized a community responsibility and voluntarily chose to indemnify victims of the Nazi persecution.

What were the consequences of such a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah? Jesus said to the city of Jerusalem: “Your house [the temple] is abandoned to you.” (Matthew 23:37, 38) Yes, God withdrew his protection, and the Roman armies subsequently destroyed Jerusalem with its temple. Just as a man’s family would feel the consequences if he squandered all his possessions, the loss of divine protection was felt not only by those who cried out for Jesus’ death but by their families as well. Again, here's the point. In this sense Jesus’ blood did come upon them and their children.—Matthew 27:25. In other words once the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem those self-inflicted prophetic words "His blood come upon us and upon our children" was fulfilled in 70 C.E. (Matthew 27:25)

However, nothing in the “New Testament” claims that future generations of Jews would bear special guilt for the death of Jesus. On the contrary, because of his love for their forefather Abraham, God showed the Jews special consideration, offering them the first opportunity to become Christians. (Acts 3:25, 26; 13:46; Romans 1:16; 11:28) When this opportunity was eventually extended to non-Jews, God ceased dealing with any person on the basis of national origin. Peter said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34, 35) The apostle Paul later wrote: “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek.” (Romans 10:12) Jews then had the same status before God as non-Jews, and that is still true today. — Compare Ezekiel 18:20.

So then why does Anti-Semitism exist in Christendom?

It can therefore be seen that the “New Testament” is not anti-Semitic. Instead, the “New Testament” records the teachings of a man who lived and died as a Jew and who taught his Jewish followers to respect the ideals of the Mosaic Law. (Matthew 5:17-19) But if the “New Testament” is not to blame, why has there been such persistent anti-Semitism in Christendom?

Christianity itself is not to blame. In a way similar to that of the false Christians in the time of Jude who were “turning the undeserved kindness of God into an excuse for loose conduct,” professed Christians throughout history have dragged the name of Christ into the mire of bigotry and prejudice. (Jude 4) Thus, the anti-Semitism in Christendom has been due to the selfish prejudices of people who have been Christian in name only.

Interestingly, Jesus himself foretold that some would claim to have performed all sorts of powerful works in his name but would really be “workers of lawlessness”—no friends of his! (Matthew 7:21-23) Many of these have tried to use the “New Testament” as a justification for their hatreds and prejudices, but reasoning people can see through that hollow pretense.

Here's another point: false Christians will have to answer to God for their anti-Semitism. But just as the existence of counterfeit money does not disprove the existence of real money, the existence of imitation Christians in no way diminishes the fact that there are, indeed, true Christians, people who are known for their love, not for their prejudices. Why not get acquainted with such people at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses near you?

Ninety percent of the Jews at the time were in the Diaspora and most lived in what is now Persia/Iran/Syria. Most Jews never even heard of Jesus at the time.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 24 Jan 2011, 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Goodness Kxmode, you should get a job writting articles for the Watchtower, such is the manner of your prose.

Now here is something I wonder about, "Christians will have to answer to God for their anti-Semitism", now I thought a Christian was a "footstep follower of Christ", and was to not shrink back from the same condemnation of evil that Jesus himself did.

Now Jesus himself fiercely condemned what the Jewish leaders did and said, in fact in Matthew 23 he identified who Babylon the Great was with these words:- 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth,
He was talking to the Jewish leaders then, (not the Catholic church by the way), compare with Revelation 18 identification of BTG:- 24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

So, if Jesus himself blamed the Jews for all the blood spilt on the earth, are you, (or rather the Jehovahs Witnesses), saying God will judge us negatively for holding the same views?




Back to the original topic, if you click on the following link:-LINK
You will find 64 links to read a book that covers the reason Jews where thrown out of various countries, they where thrown out of England for 400 years for this practice, and Spain in the 1400s along with mnay other countries, this is probably the main historical reason for the hatred of the Jews.

According to the article the practice still goes on but with Palestinian and Romanian children being so easy to come by these days, the West has largely forgotten.

In the areas Jesus taught how did Jews react to his teachings? Most reacted favorably. "Most" does not mean in the actual, literal sense of the word as regards an entire race or culture of people, it means those in the vicinity of Jesus.

With regards the Diaspora, or great dispersion, of Jews throughout the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ limited his own preaching to the soil of Israel, but he commanded his followers to reach out and spread their ministry “to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) Jews from different parts of the Roman Empire were in Jerusalem attending the Pentecost festival in 33 C.E., and they heard the spirit-begotten Christians preaching about Jesus in the languages of Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, the district of Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Crete, Arabia, and Rome. Thousands, upon returning to their lands, took with them their newly found faith. (Acts 2:1-11) In most of the cities Paul visited he found synagogues where he could readily speak to Jews of the Dispersion. In Lystra, Paul met Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess. Aquila and Priscilla were newly arrived from Rome when Paul got to Corinth, about 50 C.E. (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 16:1; 17:1, 2; 18:1, 2, 7; 19:8) The great numbers of Jews in Babylon made it worth the effort for Peter to go there to carry on his ministry among “those who are circumcised.” (Galatians 2:8; 1 Peter 5:13) This community of Jews in Babylon continued as the most important center of Judaism for quite some time after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Therefore, the dispersion of Jews throughout the Roman Empire contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity.

To answer your respond most dispersed Jews in time would hear about Jesus and his words.

I wasn't there so I would not know. My guess is that a few might have thought Jesus was the promised Moisheach (a mortal man) who would reverse the bad fortunes of the Jews under Roman rule. No religious Jew would have mistaken Jesus for God. The concept of the Incarnation is blasphemy to Jews.

ruveyn

How can one people be so hated throughout history without reason?