Is Christianity Cruel?

[dizzle]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/links/STR.jpgSTAND TO REASON (http://www.str.org)

Is Christianity Cruel?

By Greg Koukl


Christianity has been called cruel because it teaches that Jews killed Jesus and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. The first incites persecution; the second denies that goodness matters in God’s assessment. This challenge, though, misunderstands both the nature of history and the nature of justice.

Is Christianity Cruel?

Moviegoers will soon get an eyeful from Academy Award-winning producer Mel Gibson. His latest film, “The Passion,” chronicles the final twelve hours in the life of Jesus, including the most authentic—and graphic—portrayal to date of the brutality Jesus experienced at the hands of His executioners.

Though the movie is not even in distribution yet, the controversy has already begun. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has weighed in with their concern. Since Vatican II in the 60s, the Catholic Church has vigorously disavowed Jews’ responsibility for Jesus’ death, a view that historically has been used as grounds for persecution of Jews as “Christ killers.”

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League also expressed alarm. “Will [the “Passion”] correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus?” they wondered, according to the Washington Post.

Jewish leaders have long been deeply sensitive to any characterization of Christ’s passion that would transfer guilt collectively to the Jews. Even prominent pro-Christian Jewish thinker Dennis Prager has voiced misgivings about Christianity in this area. In a piece entitled “When Religion Makes People Cruel” I found this comment: “Historically, the greatest evidence of the ability of religion to make a person cruel can be found among believing Christians.”

The general point of the article was a good one: Sometimes the directives of a particular religion seem at odds with basic morality. But is Christianity guilty here? Do the specific teachings of the New Testament produce cruel people and cruel situations?

Prager gave two examples. First, pogroms against Jews have been justified because the Christian Bible blamed Jews for killing Jesus. Second, Christianity is cruel because it teaches that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

The first point is a serious non-sequitur. The second errs principally because of a misunderstanding of the role of goodness in salvation, an issue even many Christians are seriously confused on.

Our fundamental questions are simple: Does the Bible teach these things, and do these teachings, by their nature, lead to cruelty in those who believe them?

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jews Killed Jesus?

The Christian Bible does, in fact, teach that Jewish leadership was responsible for the execution of Jesus. But this, in itself, is not cruel. First, it’s not a religious dogma of Christianity, but a somewhat incidental historical footnote. Second, if Prager’s accusation sticks, then, oddly enough, Judaism ends up being cruel, too. Let me explain.

First, the identity of Jesus’ executioners is irrelevant to Christian dogma. What is critical to dogma is that Jesus truly died and was raised, not that any particular group was responsible for His death. Indeed, from the perspective of theology all men are responsible for the death of Christ because all sinned, and this the New Testament is very clear on. Further, Jesus made it clear that He gave His life willingly. No one takes His life from Him, He said, but He lays it down on His own initiative (John 10:18).

The question here is not doctrinal, but historical. The Gospel accounts merely report what happened, that Jews had Jesus executed for religious reasons. Historical facts are either true or false, not cruel or kind. If a particular thing actually happened, then it cannot be cruel to believe it.

Incidentally, the Bible is not the only historical record to implicate Jews in Christ’s passion. The Jewish scripture known as the Babylonian Talmud suggests the same thing. Sanhedrin 43a says, “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’”

The Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 107b states, “Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray.” According to these Jewish texts, Jesus was executed for religious crimes and offenses that mattered to Jews, not for political sedition against the Roman Empire.

Second, cruelty to Jews does not follow from the assertion that Jews were instrumental in the death of Jesus. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see this. Quite the contrary, the early Christians brought their message of forgiveness and reconciliation to the Jews first, with no animosity.

Further, the Christians of the first couple of centuries were excessively pacifistic and wouldn’t lift a finger to defend even themselves, much less take revenge on the Jews. Revenge was not only forbidden by the New Testament, it was unnecessary. According to Christian teaching, the execution of Christ was used by God to accomplish salvation for all who would believe. The death of Jesus was a great good to Christians, not an evil that needed avenging. It wasn’t until centuries after Christ that the institutional church used such illegitimate justification for malicious actions against non-Christians.

Is Judaism Cruel?

Third, this line of thinking also makes Judaism cruel. In the first century the Jewish belief that Jesus was not the Messiah was the animus for systematic persecution of Christians. Stephen was murdered by a mob of Jewish leaders for pointing out that the Jews habitually rejected God’s chosen deliverer—from Joseph, to Moses, down through the prophets, even to Messiah. In fact, most Christian martyrs from 33 to 64 A.D. died at the hands of Jews.

Here’s the dilemma. This argument holds that Christians murdered Jews because they believed Jews killed Christ. Therefore, the belief that Jews killed Christ is evil and Christianity is cruel for teaching it. But Jews murdered Christians because Jews believed Jesus was not the Messiah, as Christians claimed. Therefore, the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah is evil, and Judaism is cruel for teaching it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The fact is, evil people of all religious persuasions may seize upon religious justification for their immoral behavior, even when the behavior itself is condemned by the religion they purport to serve. When that happens, it’s simply mistaken to blame the religion. It may be that some of the greatest acts of cruelty came from professing Christians who used their religion as a cloak for evil. Christianity itself, though, doesn’t cause such evil. Rather, it consistently condemns it.

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jesus Is the Only Way to Heaven?

The second objection states that it’s cruel to teach that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

First, even if this depiction was entirely true, it escapes me how teaching this makes one cruel. Historically such thinking has stimulated great kindness: acts of charity, mercy, and love to make more tangible and palatable a message of God’s forgiveness that people desperately need. History is replete with wonderful examples of self-sacrifice and profound acts of love from Christians whose chief motivation was their belief that people perish eternally without Christ. It may be that Christians are mistaken here, but I fail to see how such a view makes them cruel.

Second, this is largely a straw man; the depiction is not true. Christianity does not teach that all “believers” in Christ, no matter what their behavior, have eternal salvation. In the Bible words are cheap and behavior is dear. Mere professions of faith are worthless. John says explicitly, “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar,” and “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God” (1 John 2:4, 3:10). Jesus Himself said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

But what about good people? Does Christianity hold that goodness is irrelevant to God? Here we must take our time and weigh our words carefully.

First, the Old Testament puts the issue of human goodness in perspective. Isaiah 64:6-7 says, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

The Psalmist adds, “They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. There is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside. Together they have become corrupt. There is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1-3).

These are strong words. The prophet affirms that our iniquity overwhelms our goodness. The Psalmist declares that our corruption consumes us. This is God’s perspective. We are all guilty, from the least to the great.

This is precisely the Christian testimony. The New Testament does not teach that good deeds are of no value. It teaches that good deeds cannot pay for bad deeds. This is a critical point of misunderstanding, even by Christians.

Why Good Can’t Pay for Bad

Our problem is not goodness, but badness. Yes, God demands that we live ethically. But what about those moments when we don’t? The most vital issue Christianity answers is “How can we be right with God when we are not thoroughly good?”

There is profound misunderstanding on this point, as I said, and part of the misunderstanding is because many err in defining goodness according to human standards, that is, good “more or less”—basically good. God, on this view, is concerned with what kind of individual one is “on average.” He’s not examining every corner of one’s life to find any dirt there. If the good outweighs the bad, if good is predominant, then God winks at the occasional moral lapse.

But justice never works like this, does it? The law demands that “on average” each person obey every law always, not most laws usually. You can be an upstanding citizen all your life, but one single crime is still going to bring you before the court.

Further—and this is absolutely critical—no amount of good behavior pays for bad behavior. Period. Law requires consistent goodness, and that which is already owed cannot be used to pay for new debts.

God, like all lawgivers, requires nothing less than moral perfection. “But that’s impossible,” you say. You’re right. That’s why we need a Savior.

For those inclined to disagree with this point, I have this question: If laws can be violated with no expectation of punishment (since the law does not demand perfection) then which laws or what percentage of the law can be disobeyed with impunity, with no consequence of justice?

The Christian claim is simply this: Every person stands guilty before God in some measure. Good deeds cannot atone for bad deeds because one already owes God obedient, righteous, moral behavior. Instead, we must seek forgiveness, and since God is the one offended, we must seek forgiveness from Him on His terms.

The New Testament teaching is that God’s terms involve Jesus, and a rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God’s forgiveness. One who rejects forgiveness is still in his sin; he’s still under judgment.

Here’s a simple way of putting it. One day every single one of us, the morally great and small alike, will stand before God to be judged for our own crimes, such as they are—some more, some less. Either we pay for them ourselves, or we let Jesus pay for them for us. That’s it. If we refuse forgiveness through Jesus, then we stand alone to endure God’s penalty.

That’s the New Testament teaching. There’s nothing bizarre, unfair, outlandish, or cruel about it. The only cruelty is knowing this information and withholding it.

I certainly agree that religion can make people cruel. But that’s only because either the religion itself is false and therefore does not reflect God’s morality, or because the religion is true, but its ethics are either misunderstood or misapplied. The latter happens frequently with Christianity. That’s not the fault of its founder, though, or its founding principles; it’s the fault of its followers.

300

Stand to Reason - Equipping Ambassadors for Christ in knowledge, wisdom, and character.

Our Mission

Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.

Our Strategy

Stand to Reason has a strategy to change the world God gives us access to. Our plan has six parts, and we're working our plan very intentionally.

Radio
Self-directed Training Curricula
Public Speaking and Seminars
Publications
Cyberspace
Outposts

Stand to Reason's website includes over 300 free commentaries on issues like abortion, homosexuality, the reliability of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and more. Visit www.str.org to research your next school assignment, small group topic, or for personal enrichment and study.

Receive a free subscription to Stand to Reason’s bi-monthly newsletter, Solid Ground, and a free copy of Never Read a Bible Verse by clicking here (http://www.str.org/survey/formnews_nav.htm). TheologyWeb highly recommends both products to stimulate your thinking about critical issues.

If anyone is in the Anaheim, California area, you may wish to check out the “With All Your Mind” Conference taking place at Talbot School of Theology on December 28-31, 2003 where Greg Koukl will be a speaker. For more information click here (http://www.talbot.edu/programs/maph/conference.cfm). Also, in Marietta, Georgia on November 20-22, 2003, Greg will be speaking at the “Set Forth Your Case” (a conference to equip Christians for discipleship and evangelism) for which further information can be obtained by clicking here (http://www.jfbc.org/www/setforth/home.html).

Lastly Greg Koukl’s radio broadcasts are archived on the Web, so even if you do not have the benefit of hearing his broadcast locally, you can still benefit from his fabulous show which features relevant monologues, guests, and call-in question and answer sessions here (www.strradio.org). TheologyWeb thanks Greg profusely for his very kind mentions of TheologyWeb frequently on his broadcasts.

Remember Stand to Reason is a featured Sister Site of TheologyWeb, and if you enjoyed this article, each week you can find similar ones posted for discussion and edification here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=102).


300

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)

[dizzle]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate for a. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[geebob]

The second objection states that it’s cruel to teach that all non-Christians, regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind, will suffer eternal torment, while all believers in Jesus, regardless of their behavior, have salvation.

I agree that this would be cruel. Even pagan mothers love and hope for the life of their newborns. This is from God, it is not sin, but reprobation in any form including reprobation that is due to not some mysterious purpose in God's will but rather ending up on the wrong side of temporal spacial boundary of the Gospel, is at odds with maternal love. It says that though God has given it to her to raise her child in the hope of life, He has only done so for this minute and insignificant fraction of eternity which will lead to eternal punishment.

There is a more serious paradox (and more readily explicit one, as the one above is not drawn out as well as it could be), regarding the two greatest commandments and reprobation.

There are two things to note about our love for God. One is that our love, when we are percieving everything right about God entails that we approve of everything about Him. There should be nothing that we find fault in him. Secondly, our love for God is dependent upon his love for us. As John tells us, we love because he first loved us.

Now the second greatest commandment tells us that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Now one thing to note about my love for myself is that I desire salvation. I desire to live happily forever. So If I love my neighbor as myself, then I will have that same desire for them. Loving my neighbor also entails that I would to a degree identify there wants and needs as my own.

thus comes the paradox. If I love my neibor as myself and yet God has not made sure that there was an accessible possibility for them to be saved, then God has thwarted one of my most basic desires, the desire to live and have joy. He thwarts this desire because now, loving them as myself, I have this desire for them. Furthermore, in loving them, I identify some of there most important hopes, desires, and fears as my own. And since my love for God is dependent upon his love for me, If I am identifying with them, then God's lack of significant love for them is a problem.

There is one more thing about how this section of the article is worded and the statement that I just critisized above. It is cruel to hold that all non-christians will be damned given that many have never heard the Gospel, but I agree that it is not cruel to claim that Jesus is the only way, For even though the unevangelized and the old testament saints have never heard of Jesus in their lifetime, It is not the case that this will prevent God from applying Jesus sacrifice to their lives.

regardless of how God-fearing, moral, or kind

nothing could be further from the biblical truth as evidenced by heroes of the faith such as Rahab, Cornelius, Melchezidek, and Namaan.

First, even if this depiction was entirely true, it escapes me how teaching this makes one cruel.

It doesn't make them cruel.... but I can't say the same of the picture of God that this view presents for the reasons I've given.

History is replete with wonderful examples of self-sacrifice and profound acts of love from Christians whose chief motivation was their belief that people perish eternally without Christ.

True, but don't forget that history is repleat with those who, though they held as well that people would perish eternally, did not also hold that all non-christians would be damned. After all, I believe Justin Martyr is that man from where we get the term "martyr"? If not he was still martyred, and he was one of the many great minds of the church who did not hold that all non-Christians would be damned.

First, the Old Testament puts the issue of human goodness in perspective. Isaiah 64:6-7 says, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

The Psalmist adds, “They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. There is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside. Together they have become corrupt. There is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1-3).

It is not necessarily the case that these aren't hyperbolic with exceptions. It is biblically false to hold for example that no one does good. The stories of the righteous abound.

And the good that is done is not as filthy rags. Isaiah makes this statement in the context of the prostitution of israel.

It's hard to imagin that the almsgiving and prayers from Cornelius that went up before the Lord as a "Memoral" were filthy rags.

But perhaps we could take the meanings of these texts as refference to depravity as does Calvin. And perhaps we can take the righteousness of Cornelius as evidence not of his own goodness but as evidence of the grace of God at work as Calvin does. So then what's to stop us from viewing righteous acts by those outside the temporal spacial boundaries as evidence of God's grace at work, like for example the Muslim who risked his life to inform the US troops the whereabouts of Jessica Lynch (ther is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life...)? (Calvin does not hold that anyone outside the boundary of evangelism could be saved, unlike his cohort Zwingli, and that is why it is so fun to use his thinking to connect the dots).

[Cherith]

Is It Cruel to Hold that Jews Killed Jesus? The Christian Bible does, in fact, teach that Jewish leadership was responsible for the execution of Jesus. ... it’s not a religious dogma of Christianity, but a somewhat incidental historical footnote.

It was not just the Jewish "leadership" but the laity as well. The leadership conducted the secret, illegal trial, but it was the people who cried out with one voice for Barabbas and called upon God to judge them and their offspring for their choice:

Mat 27:25: "Then answered ALL the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

People should be very careful when they cast their vote and make their choice and call upon God to hold them to and ratify their words. What choice do they then leave God? Remember the rash vow of Jephthah?

The whole point should be mute today. Modern Jews are not the physical offspring of the patriarchs, nor can they prove descendancy even from those around at the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Let modern Jews profess the true nature of their religion - i.e. that it has no legitimate ties to the ancient people, but is merely the descendant of ancient idolatry and has that and that alone in common with the unbelieving Jews of old. What Christian would "persecute" them on that account?

...the identity of Jesus’ executioners is irrelevant to Christian dogma. What is critical to dogma is that Jesus truly died and was raised, not that any particular group was responsible for His death. Indeed, from the perspective of theology all men are responsible for the death of Christ because all sinned, and this the New Testament is very clear on. Further, Jesus made it clear that He gave His life willingly. No one takes His life from Him, He said, but He lays it down on His own initiative (John 10:18).

It may not be relevant to Greg Koukl, but the Scriptures do not portray the murder of Christ, and judgment on His murderers as irrelevant. Surely this doesn't stand to reason? :innocent: It is precisely for this reason that Christ weeps over Jerusalem - because He knows what is coming upon them and FOR WHAT REASON.

Sure, no man Jew or otherwise had the POWER to take Christ's life from Him (which is the import of what Jesus is trying to convey in John 10:18), but that is very different from being HELD ACCOUNTABLE or RESPONSIBLE for the taking of His life. He didn't commit suicide after all... He was WILLING to die, but He didn't WANT to die. As someone who was fully man, He didn't WANT His spirit separated from His body... In fact, He agonized over His upcoming trial, conviction and sentence. He WANTED, if there was any other possible way, for THAT CUP to pass from Him. The Scriptures say "Nevertheless, not My Will, but Thine be done..." (Luke 22:42).

The Lord did not initiate His death, but neither did He need "prompting or direction" from others to dismiss His spirit.

This in no way absolved the Jews of their blood guilt. Nor did it incriminate ALL Jews then alive or since. Some were not even in Palestine and some (the disciples for instance) were certainly not a party to the condemnation. However, as spokesmen for the group, the leaders and the majority did call down divine judgment upon their own people. The Romans carried out the sentence at the behest of the people in that province, but as a societal group the Romans had no axe to grind with Christ (yet...).

The book of Psalms and Acts as well as the apostles make it quite clear that God did indeed hold the Jews responsible for the death of His Son (Psa 2; Acts 2:23; 3:13-19; 4:25-28; etc.). And the irony of it all cannot be lost on anyone who but reads the Scriptures. Here was the chosen nation of God, chosen specifically to bear His Image, reflect His Attributes, be a light to the world and usher in His Redemption and they "with wicked hands" delivered up, denied, crucified and "killed The Prince of Life." Peter, a Jew, says to this he was a witness! These are not just idle words. He too is calling upon the Divine Judge to hear the facts of the case, the testimony of eye-witnesses and to render a verdict just as the Jews that day at the trial of Jesus.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His Own Will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the Author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

No first-century Jew will be able to look back at the Judgment and say that they were forced to lift up their voice and vote in unison with others against Christ, but neither will they be able to deny that they did.

"The question here is not doctrinal, but historical. The Gospel accounts merely report what happened, that Jews had Jesus executed for religious reasons."

If they had Him executed "for religious reasons" then it is more than simply historical. Their actions were borne out of their doctrine - i.e. that their "place and nation" were more important to them than "kill[ing] The Prince of Life." They knew who Jesus was and they were willing to take their chances. And their actions and doctrines became a lesson for Christians - true believers - NOT to emulate. That is more than a historical lesson, that is a doctrinal lesson as well.

Overall, the article was exceptionally good and Greg gave an awesome presentation of the Gospel (as he always does). This and this alone should be our response to such lying, idolatrous nonsense.

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. {12} Behold, I come quickly; and My Reward is with Me, to give every man according to his work. ...{14} Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to The Tree of Life, and may enter in through The Gates into The City. {15} For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." --Rev 22:11-15

[Vorkosigan]

Overall, the article was exceptionally good and Greg gave an awesome presentation of the Gospel (as he always does). This and this alone should be our response to such lying, idolatrous nonsense.

Overall, this article was a mediocre bit of squirming that did not find an exit from the underlying nihilism and cruelty of Christianity. When you get down to it, it is still the loaded gun of hell and the Deity saying: obey me or else. Really that simple, the rest is simply an apologetics for authoritarian power.

Vorkosigan

[Queen]

Just a simple remark:

Aren't all religions cruel when interpreted by fundamentalists who hate people that are different or have a different faith? It has nothing to do with the holy books or anything like that...it is how you read the words and use it in daily life....humans make it cruel.......humans make it good.....humans make it peaceful....humans make it warlike.....humans are not perfect after all.

Just my two cents....

Lots of love, sunshine and wisdom,
Queen

[EricLikesHugs]

My take on it is that the Jews weren't necessarily responsible for Jesus' death. They tried their hardest to kill him, but failed.

Here's my reasoning:
In the gospel account, Jesus is condemned by every relevant religious and political institution. The Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and the masses all consented to his crucifixion. They tried to flog him, beat him on the head driving in deeper a crown of thorn, and finally had him nailed to a tree.

None of this though accounts for Jesus death, but a physical reflection of the awesom and horrible suffering he endured.

In Gethsemane (Matthew 26:38) Jesus says, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death." His suffering started long before his trek to Calvary. Something to note: Jesus said earlier in Matthew that we should not be afraid of him who can only kill the body, but we should fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Hell. If Jesus soul was on the verge of dying, Jesus was legitimately going through Hell.

A verse in the gospel of John says "But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out."

This shows that Jesus was dead after a few hours on the cross. I've heard also that the blood and water signify that his heart had exploded.

I think that sin is what is responsible for the immediate and physical death of Jesus, and therefore makes us sinners responsible. The Jews, they tried, but who can kill God? Jesus brought himself into a world of sin. In a world he knew would reject and crucify Him.

[geebob]

it is still the loaded gun of hell and the Deity saying: obey me or else. Really that simple,

I don't see that it is that simple when the kurtness of your description glosses over the fact that God is not merely arbitrarily making us obey inexplicably weird laws (technically, the law is no longer over us) but came down to suffer for us and with us even inspite of the fact that God suffers because of us. God has gone through hell for us and he knows how we can avoid it, so why refuse him in arrogance when it's better to live in peace and love with him?




Aren't all religions cruel when interpreted by fundamentalists who hate people that are different or have a different faith? It has nothing to do with the holy books or anything like that...i

On the contrary, the most faithful interpretation of some of the "holy" books may involve callouse indifference or hatred. Then again maybe not. I don't see reasonableness in simply making such broad sweeping genrealizations without a real examination of the nitty gritty and details of the claims. And of course there is the issue about where our own biases come from in determining what constitutes hatred.

[Director]

Maybe this whole racial hatred bit is a peculiar type of thing to America. Here's what I dont get, lets say the Jews were responsible for Jesus death...what's supposed to follow from that? That we are now justified in persecuting or hating Jews? But that doesn't hold up too well and here's why. Anyone who claims offense at the killing of Jesus would also have to claim that Jesus meant somthing special to them. If Jesus was special to a person you would think that that person would have studied what Jesus taught which of course would reveal things like "Love your enemies" "forgive those who..." etc. How would they reconcile the teachings of Christ with sentiments of hatred, revenge and predjudice?
As a point of history anyone who now hates Jews because of this 2000 year old crime would also have to give approval to African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese and others who were persecuted and destroyed by white America for holding feelings of hatred towards whites.

We could debate for a long time over this but here's one thing I am SURE OF, none of the people responsible for Jesus death are alive today. Directing hatred and revenge at those who are 2000 years removed from the event is just another example of ignorance. Take Mels movie for what it is.

[Jeannot]

There are passages in the NT that, taken at their face value, have been used to justify antisemitism from at least the time of St John Chrysostom through Martin Luther to the present. Most of these are in John, but there is also one notorious one in Matt.

These passages have provoked not only prejudice and persecution, but also hatred and murder.

But I do agree with your theological point that it was the whole human race that is responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, and not any one group. But why is this point often lost sight of, even by Church Fathers?

As for the question of "being good, " doing "works," etc--did not Jesus say "Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect"?

[Cherith]

Eric(Who)LikesHugs said: My take on it is that the Jews weren't necessarily responsible for Jesus' death. They tried their hardest to kill him, but failed.

Why do people have such a hard time reading, understanding and accepting The Word and Indictment of God? Are ye more holy, more just, more forgiving than God?

Acts 3:13-17: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. {14} But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and [ye] desired a murderer to be granted unto you; {15} And [ye] killed The Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. ...{17} And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers."

Acts 2:22-23: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: {23} Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"

As Hank Hannagraaf likes to say "the pagans were simply fulfilling their job description." The irony in the crucifixion of the Messiah is that He came to redeem the people of God and was slain by them! (albeit with the help of the pagans, of course...)

It was Jerusalem that God destroyed in A.D. 70 not Rome or Athens or London. It was Jerusalem Jesus wept over knowing what would befall them for their rebellious rejection.

Are Christians cruel to accept and affirm the indictment of God upon an ancient group? Is God cruel? And are ye/we more righteous than God?

--C

P.S. As I've said in numerous other places, today's Jews are not the physical descendants of those of the first century (although in matters spiritual they are their theological offspring) and are not (and should not be) held accountable for the deeds of their "fathers".

In like manner, we, as Christians, should not be (and are not) guilty for acts perpetrated by any of our ancestors (physical or spiritual) in the Crusades.

However, modern Jews are repeating the ancient error of old in that "they profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Tit 1:16)

[they] "crucify again for themselves The Son of God, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb 6:6) by "oppos Him and blasphem[ing]" (Acts 18:5-6) by saying, in essence, that Christ's cross is not a holy sacrifice for sin, but the deserved execution of a guilty criminal; all the while condemning themselves as accomplices in murder. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot The Son of God, and hath counted The Blood of The Covenant...an unholy/common thing, and hath insulted The Spirit of Grace?" (Heb 10:29)

"We know Him Who said: '[i]Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' ... and 'The Lord will judge His people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of The Living God." (vv.30-21)

As for Jeannot's "antisemitic" heading, let me just say this: "Show me a Semite that I might oppose him!" (A Semite was someone who was descended from Noah's son, Shem, and was an ethnic distinction. Modern Jews are not the biological/ethnic descendants of any one son of Noah.

Anti-semitism was a term that was non-existent until 1879 when it was coined by one Wilhelm Marr a German agitator, who created it to explain the current anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe. It has been used successfully ever since by the adherents of Judaism (particularly Zionism) to promote their religious, idealogical and political goals. (Too bad Marr and the users of his new word didn't have a solid grasp of history or biology!)

[geebob]

These passages have provoked not only prejudice and persecution, but also hatred and murder.

talk about your prooftexting to ridiculous extremes. :ahem:

But some of those harsh words were deserved considering That it was first the Jews who persecuted Christians. Of course it is a colossal embarrasment that that should be turned around.

more directly, many of the Jews were being chastized by Christian Jews (pretty much the only kind of Christians for a bit as well as most if not all of your scripture authors), for not recognizing their Lord and Savior, God and Israel in the flesh.

Eventually, a sifnificant bone of contention against the "Jews" is that they held that you had to become Jewish in order to become a Christian. But other Jews, those who wrote the New Testament held that faith in Jesus replaced the signifiers of membership in the people of God.

To turn this into racism is just pure foolishness and stupidity.

[EricLikesHugs]

due to misunderstanding, and a fault of my own. And I will not elaborate any more. I still contend that Jews should not be labeled Christ killers, because even if they were the immediate cause, like water is the immediate cause of anyone drowning, the blame lies within all of us.

On another note..
How can Christians be antisemitic?
We have a Jewish Bible written By Jewish People (At least most of it), A Jewish Messiah, and in the Epistle of Romans we're called Spiritual Israel, grafted into the lineage of Abraham.

[falco]

just thinking here.

If christians were so nihilistic and cruel.....why don't we look at the goods they have done based on their professed belief on the teachings. We cannot say that the teachings are cruel......ex love your neighbor...

We can look at the charity works and the money and time expended to help non-christians for starters..
Can we say that all this was done due to the cruel teachings...(when was feeding and clothing folks cruel)...or to teachings of forgiveness, love, care etc......

Or maybe God doesn't care who you are....even though you killed millions based on your own atheistic beliefs (Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.....) and one day you did one good thing. Should that person in a divine or human sense be responsible for any of his/her actions....
Maybe like some eastern religion, they'll just be born as a cockroach and try to achieve nirvana.. Interesting has anyone documented a cockroach or fruit doing good...to reach nirvana. Maybe they have there own standard of good...like just taste goood or don't bother humans.

Just some wandering thoughts..... I am biased here if anyone is wondering. :)

[Doug TenNapel]

It seems weird to me that the Jews would be blamed for Jesus' death at all, or even man for that matter. While this may be one of those and/also things, I don't see how Jesus could have done his thing for us without dying.

Jesus came into this world to be SACRIFICED by design. I think if nobody rose to the occasion to kill him, that God himself would have killed him as Jacob was willing to do with his own son. It's not about Judas, the Romans, the Jews or Barrabas etc... it's about what God did.

[falco]

Jews killing jesus and shown in a negative light is more percieve than actual facts are trying to tell (NT).

There is no anti-jew in this movie.

If Jews killing Jesus is wrong to show on a movie and is used as a Jew hating propoganda. Then is it wrong to also do other movies that shows the Jews killing prophets of old (ot) that Jehovah God sent to the people of Isreal....lets say Isaiah.....

Give it up..... US a nation recognized largely as a Christian nation gave refuge and rescue to Jews after WWII.. Dennis Prague....whom I respect... has commented greatly on this. US....backs up Isreal while the surrounding Arab countries would soon as try to push them into the ocean.

So give up on the Christian hating Jew rhetoric....
Christians believed in a Jewish Carpenter....so what about that?

Thanks.....

[Cherith]

EricLikesHugs: I retract my previous statements...and I will not elaborate any more. Boo! Hiss! :wink: I still contend that Jews should not be labeled Christ killers, because even IF they were the immediate cause, like water is the immediate cause of anyone drowning, the blame lies within all of us.

Eric, remember how Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, rose up against Solomon's son, Rehoboam (the rightful heir to the throne)? He did it with God's blessings. God ripped 10 of the 12 tribes from Rehoboam and offered them to Jeroboam under the condition that Jeroboam follow Him and be faithful to Him. We know, of course, that Jeroboam did not measure up to the conditions God sat forth.

Anyway, Jeroboam's son Nadab succeeded him as king of Israel until he was murdered by Baasha (an Issacharite; 1 Kgs 15) as The Lord had foreordained (14:14). This should have been (and indeed signaled) the end of Israel as a separate nation from Judah (v.15-16). However, 1 Kgs 16:2ff states something very curious. The Lord says: "...I Lifted you out of the dust and I Made you ruler over My people Israel, and you have walked in the way of Jeroboam, and have made My people Israel sin, to provoke Me to anger..."

Now, my question is this: who made Baasha the murderer a king over God's people?

? Baasha, by his murderous/treasonous act or
? God, by and through his sinful act?
? Or are both true?

Yet, does God, using the sinful acts of men, thereby become the Author of evil? And do these sinful men then become exonerated of their sinful deeds?

I agree on the one hand that modern "Jews" should not be labeled Christ-killers, because they were neither there nor the descendants of those who were; however, in thought, word and deed they crucify Him afresh every day by their spiritual rebellion and rejection (see Biblical refs in earlier post).

EricLikesHugs: On another note.. How can Christians be antisemitic? ...we're called Spiritual Israel, grafted into the lineage of Abraham.

How can we be called anti-semitic indeed if modern "Jews" have nothing to even prove descendancy from Shem?!?

And just to sharpen your sword, where in the Bible do you find Christians called "spiritual" Israel? About the closest thing you can find to these actual words are in Gal 4:29 and Phil 3:3:

Gal 4:29: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

Phil 3:3: "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

My point is that nowhere in Scripture are Christians called spiritual Israel. I would say that we are simply called Israel and have no need of a qualifier - as I believe the Scriptures clearly bear out... (Those turkeys in Palestine notwithstanding!) :wink:

Grace and Peace,
--C

Doug TenNapel: I think IF nobody rose to the occasion to kill him, that God himself would have killed him as Jacob was willing to do with his own son. It's not about Judas, the Romans, the Jews or Barrabas etc... it's about what God did.

That's a PRETTY B-I-G "IF" there, Doug! (And it was Abraham that was willing to offer his son Isaac and not Abraham's grandson Jacob that was ever tested to that extreme. God was Willing to allow His Son to be sacrificed, but IF He had put Him to death for no cause (John 8:46) in Him, THEN God would be unjust and we would have bigger problems to worry about!)

See comments above about Baasha...

[geebob]

I agree on the one hand that modern "Jews" should not be labeled Christ-killers, because they were neither there nor the descendants of those who were; however, in thought, word and deed they crucify Him afresh every day by their spiritual rebellion and rejection (see Biblical refs in earlier post).

some of them are rejecting a "Christ" who represents the European oppressors who butchered their babies. You can deny these wicked persons identity with israel according to the spirit (as I do), but nevertheless, there's little reason for many of modern day Jews to see that. Many messianic Jews recognize this understanding all the more the delicate nature of their position.

Christ is also crucified afresh when christian's utter the blasphemies of anti-semitism in His name. (not that it's limited to that).

[EricLikesHugs]

Cherith,

Grace and Peace.

[EricLikesHugs]

Thanks for keeping my eisegesis in check.

[Babaloo]

Dear Greg, If "...all MEN are responsible for the death of Christ," what about the women, or what about babies who die young? Those murderous women and babes, equally responsible I guess as can easily be determined in any responsible court of law anywhere on earth, for the death of Christ! (You do know that far fewer women are in prisons today than men, and even fewer babies? Maybe that's why "MEN are responsible for the death of Christ?")

And please, Greg, while you are at it, show me how you can prove that I am personally responsible for pounding nails into the hands of a Galileean who lived some two thousand years ago. I am sorry, but I do not find such a desire to perform such an action inside myself at all. In fact most people with an ounce of religious tolerance living today wouldn't have done such a thing to anyone simply for holding different religious beliefs.

Also please prove to me that such an activity as pounding nails into the hands of a Galilleean two thousand years ago did as much for mankind as translating the works of Aristotle (rediscovered in the Moorish cities in Spain) did for the people of the Medieval ages and the future of Western civilization. I heartily suggest Greg read the new book, ARISTOTLE'S CHILDREN, to get an inkling how revolutionary and mind-expanding an event the rediscovery of Aristotle was for the development of modern science indeed, for the evolution of the whole of Western thought which was at that time sunk into Augustine's ("take it on faith") neo-Platonism at the time.

I daresay, Christianity alone did nothing incredibly much for the world, since diseases came and went as did kings and conquerors, for millennia. People reviled and killed each other over differences in theology, and burned witches, during the height of the great ages of Christian faith in Europe.

Compare the fact that in the last hundred and fifty years, with the help of modern plumbing, sewage systems, clean water, modern city planning and medical science, the average life span has risen from 40 to nearly 80. More people have been fed than ever before via agricultural science and the development of increasingly hearty strains of rice and wheat. (It was that same agricultural science that falsified the dire predictions that tens of millions would die of starvation during the middle of the last century.) Also, more diseases of the body have been treated than in the previous two thousand years of Christianity alone.

And as far as communication is concerned, that too is expanding. Soon computers may be able to translate languages. The world's languages themselves are dwindling down to a few major tongues. It seems a reversal of the curse of Babel is taking place, and information/communication is spreading faster than any virus. I do hope that we don't fall back into another dark ages of course, this time due to environmental pollution or nuclear war, or simply overpopulation and urban sprawl, or an incredibly infectious plague. But at least we are aware of the dangers, and we are communicating as a species, increasingly more openly, and that appears to be accelerating the growth of honest questioning and doubts. (Hmmm, another new and interesting book worth checking out is DOUBT: A HISTORY)

Why folks like Greg Koukl and Holdings and other apologists for the "inspiration of the Bible," have so few doubts while I have far more than they do, concering far more matters of supernatural doctrines/dogmas and Biblical interpretation, is of course a question worth pursuing in and of itself, along with the others I raised above. Is it because they have reached a point at which they no longer bother to ASK even the most obvious questions? *smile* Is "the fear of God" the beginning of wisdom? Or does wisdom and intelligence begin where the "fear of God" ends?

Best, Ed

[falco]

Babaloo presents an interesting complaint against the purpose for the death of Christ.

All of our human intelligence, information, achievements can never fix or over come one thing......sin. Sin is part of our nature, which causes us to look for new achievements and new answers to solve for sin. For how many thousands of years since Aristotle have those same women and babies been weeping because we humans did not find on time a cure for the immediate sin (bullet fired from a gun or sword to a love ones neck). That sin nature can never be removed from todays newest medical technology or the futures technology. The gun was created by the great human intelligence, but there was the sword, spear and rock before the gun. This evolution of weapon is just another outcome of human nature (sin).

I just want to say that Jesus died so that there would be a way to remove this sin from us that followed us from our conception. The tools and procedures might have gotten bigger and fancier (due to human achievements) but the one reason is still sin. The Gallilean got nailed on the cross for us and because of us. You might not want to Christ's purpose to be nailed, but you can't escape from the reality of sin.

Just a burning desire to share another view with yours.

Thanks

[Marc P]

Is Christianity cruel? Moreover, should it exist? :hrm: I hope that the post I going to put on this site called: Restoring the community of Yeshua will give you some answers
MP :eek:

[Powdrbowl]

Having grown up half-Jewish and having been exposed since I was young to both Christian and Jewish theology, I honestly believe that the hubbub surrounding "Passion" is overplayed.

It is historical fact that Jews killed Jesus. However, what many do not consider is that the Jews, at the time of the crucifixion, were under Roman rule. The Jews ordered to kill Jesus were following orders from their Roman authorities. The Jewish slaves that crucified Christ may have been the hands that drove the nails into the Cross, but they were not the individuals that ordered the crucifixion to be carried out.

Jews have ben labelled as "Christ-killers" and persecuted for this label for a very long time. If "Passion" is truly accurate, then the movie will not reinforce the "Christ Killer" ideology. Instead, it will show that at the time of the crucifixion, Romans were in control, and since the Roman Empire was at the height of its power, the Jews were relatively powerless. It was, in fact, the Romans (and Judas if you really want to get into specifics) that should be seen as the individuals who killed Christ, and not the Jews.

[Jeannot]

It was the Romans who did the crucifying. Jesus was probably executed as a troulbemaker because of his assault on the Temple.

[falco]

As I understand the history surrounding this time, Pontius Pilate (spelling?) was the top Roman in charge. Pilate wanted the region to be cool and obedient. He tried to let Jesus go, but the Jewish Pharisees wanted Jesus blood. As I understand, the pharisees were a bit jealous and fearful that Jesus might cause the Roman empire to crack down on the Jews. So rather one man suffer than the whole nation suffer...that was their justification. Whatever way you look at it, Jesus had a destiny with the cross?

Here is a little joke that might illustrate my point...

An hispanic and white guy were complaining that Jesus was hispanic or white. So they decided to go and meet Jesus. They knocked on the door and jesus answers..."Nyob Zoo" (translated from hmong to english is "Hi").

It is not important who killed Jesus, because if things turned out differently, any nationality could have killed Jesus.

The purpose was the death not the nationality.

[Jeannot]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=259263#post259263

I mainly agree. But I don't think it was the Pharisees worrying about Rome, it was the Sadducees, the collaborationists who ere in power in Jerusalem.

The Pharisees worked among the people.

[Cherith]

I'm really beginning to wonder about some of you guys! and if people ever actually READ the Bible?

PowdrBowl said:Having grown up half-Jewish and having been exposed since I was young to both Christian and Jewish theology, I honestly believe that the hubbub surrounding "Passion" is overplayed.

Just exactly what do you mean by "half-Jewish"? You mean you practiced Judaism on Saturday and Christianity on Sunday? You worshipped a non-Triune god on Saturday and a Triune God on Sunday? You followed rabbinic tradition on Saturday and then was "wary of the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees" on Sunday?

Or are you trying to tell us that you can trace your lineage back to Abraham? or to the tribe of his great-grandson, Judah?

My point is that being "Jewish" as an ethnic distinction became impossible 2,000 yrs (or more) ago.

PowdrBowl: It is historical fact that Jews killed Jesus. However, what many do not consider is that the Jews, at the time of the crucifixion, were under Roman rule. The Jews ordered to kill Jesus were following orders from their Roman authorities. The Jewish slaves that crucified Christ may have been the hands that drove the nails into the Cross, but they were not the individuals that ordered the crucifixion to be carried out.

And just where do you get your "historical facts"? What gospel account are you reading? I don't see anywhere in Scripture where Jews were "ordered" to kill Jesus, nor do I see "Jewish slaves" hammering the nails. The Scripture clearly contradicts this statement. As for "ordering" the crucifixion that is a blatant lie. The Jewish hierarchy, supported by the Jewish laity, literally screamed for His blood. In essence, they placed their order: "We'll have one dead Messiah with a side-order of blasphemy, por favor."

I addressed this earlier. The Bible itself condemns the Jews as "Christ-killers." Are we more righteous than God?

PowdrBowl: Jews have ben labelled as "Christ-killers" and persecuted for this label for a very long time. If "Passion" is truly accurate, then the movie will not reinforce the "Christ Killer" ideology. Instead, it will show that at the time of the crucifixion, Romans were in control, and since the Roman Empire was at the height of its power, the Jews were relatively powerless. It was, in fact, the Romans (and Judas if you really want to get into specifics) that should be seen as the individuals who killed Christ, and not the Jews.

Again, this is NØT the indictment of Scripture. Scripture - i.e. The Holy Spirit - viewed those Jews as responsible, culpable, duplicitous blasphemers, etc. who wanted to preserve their own little power structure, and NØT poor, powerless little doves railroaded into idolatry and murder by the big bad Romans.

Jeannot said: Jesus was probably executed as a troulbemaker because of his assault on the Temple.

The Text says that they were envious (John 11:48) and that is why they "plotted" to take His Life (v.53)!!! Sure they were offended by His "assault" on the temple, but I'm sure some of them also must have been convicted by this as well.

Falco:It is not important who killed Jesus, because if things turned out differently, any nationality could have killed Jesus.

Yeah, only if the Law and prophets had been given to another nationality. And if it's so unimportant then why does the Scripture go out of it's way to condemn this sin. Why not just sweep it under the theological rug? BECAUSE GOD HAD A POINT TO MAKE. Here He had given Israel every privilege under the sun and to Israel ONLY had He given this sacred privilege and yet, with all that "extrinsic, efficacious grace" (Grace that externally at least is possible of producing a desired effect; Molinism?) this blessed family still managed to kill it's only Salvation - literally.

So God's point was what hope would you or I (as those outside of these privileges) have ever had of appropriating God's Grace apart from His Divine Sovereignty working in and through the evil deeds of men who DID have these extraordinary privileges? We would have done the same thing - perhaps sooner, Babaloo's denials notwithstanding! Read Romans 9-11.

--C

[Bill the Cat]

Cherith, please don't use shades of red, as that color is reserved for mods. Thanks...

[geebob]

My point is that being "Jewish" as an ethnic distinction became impossible 2,000 yrs (or more) ago.

This is absurd and horrendously nonbiblical. I have a hard time believing that The people that Jesus came from where not ethnic Jews.

I addressed this earlier. The Bible itself condemns the Jews as "Christ-killers." Are we more righteous than God?

This label is a repugnant designation that no Christian should ever use as the servants of satan reveled in it in 1940's germany.

And no the croud should not be considered representative of all Jews as one croud in jerusalem hardly constitutes the nation of israel let alone the population of jerusalem. And many of them repented on the day of pentacost anyhow. And did they stop being Jewish when they became Christian's? If that was the case, the Jew's would not have wrestled with the issue decades afterword with the question of whether the gentiles could become christian or not without first becoming Jewish. The first church council (the only one reffered to in scripture) was about this very issue.

And inas much as the Jews killed Christ, so we may also blame Roman cowardice which was more concerned with appeasing an angry mob than with justice.

But of course God used their wickedness not so that he would implicate his choosen people but to save them and the world.

And if it's so unimportant then why does the Scripture go out of it's way to condemn this sin.

Why did Jesus go out of his way to forgive it?


"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

[Cherith]

Gee, Bob... You're facts are just all wrong.

Why don't you ask PwdrBowl (or some other Jewish person you know) what tribe they come from and see what answer they give you. Better yet why don't you just look at my avatar and try and figure it out...

As for your other statements... well, they're nonsense as well (a lot like the ones you've made on the Molinism controversy).

What would you call a group of people who killed Christ? I'm sure it will be oh so politically correct and socially acceptable, but will it be Biblical...?

"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of The Just One; of Whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:" --Acts 7:52

"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; {15} And killed The Prince of Life, Whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." --Acts 3:14-15

"Now about that time Herod the king [of the Jews] stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. {2} And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. {3} And BECAUSE he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" --Acts 12:1-3

"And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul." ... {27} "This man was taken of the Jews, and would have been killed by them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman." --Acts 23:12, 27

"Woe unto you! for you build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. {48} Truly YOU bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. {49} Therefore also said The Wisdom of God, I Will Send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: {50} THAT the blood of ALL the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of THIS generation; {51} From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." --Luke 11:47-51

"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art Righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, BECAUSE Thou hast Judged thus. {6} FOR they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink; FOR they are worthy." --Rev 16:5-6

As for the rest of your comments, well, as I said, they are just silly:

Gee, Bob... ...did they stop being Jewish when they became Christian's?

And inas much as the Jews killed Christ...

Talk about needing a coherent theological system...
---C

(And no, neither Gibson nor I are neo-Nazis.)

[geebob]

Why don't you ask PwdrBowl (or some other Jewish person you know) what tribe they come from and see what answer they give you. Better yet why don't you just look at my avatar and try and figure it out...

I have no clue what Anglo or Germanic tribes I descended from. I'm still of german and english decent.

How 'bout asking pwdrbowl why his ancestor's decided to endure 1600 years of horrendous persecution from "christian's" instead of just relingquishing their judaism?

What would you call a group of people who killed Christ? I'm sure it will be oh so politically correct and socially acceptable, but will it be Biblical...?

a select group of romans and jews who were around at the time.

Jews in general were not christ killers. That would make the apostle's christ killers.

"This man was taken of the Jews, and would have been killed by them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman."

refference after refference of the status quo the Jewish people. But that isn't the jews in general.

And no, neither Gibson nor I are neo-Nazis

I know your not. You just have all the sensitivity and discretion of someone choosing to make criticizms of the naacp, even though they may be legitimate ones, while wearing bed sheets and a pointy hat.

[Dbtng.Thomas]

Call me crazy but it seems to me that there's a lot of talk about god the F requiring god the S to come to earth and be sacrificed. Doesn't this imply that god the F killed his son? Like Abraham who was only too willing to bring down the knife on his son, god the F could have spared god the S as well. Hell, Jesus begged to be spared. Why blame the instruments (Jewish leaders, Roman soldiers, Pilot, etc) when the prime cause gets away with nary a mention. I say god the F killed god the s to redeem the horribly sinful humans.

Leave the poor Jews alone for Christ's sake. They have their hands full with the Palastinians.

[falco]

You are definitely correct that God the F sent God the S to be killed. Perfect subject for Christmas. The Isrealites, Romans etc..... take some blame as well, as do us all. It wouldn't have mattered what group of people was used for Jesus to be born into..... the same result would have occurred. God is in control of all events..... Jesus was preordained to die on the Cross before the world was created.

Thanks, Merry Christmas..

[Jeannot]

"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of The Just One; of Whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:" --Acts 7:52

How many prophets were killed? Elijah was persecuted by Ahab, but not by the people at large. Similarly with John the Baptist, who, acc. to scriptures, was wildly popular, and was done in by Antipas.

And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul." ... {27} "This man was taken of the Jews, and would have been killed by them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman." --Acts 23:12, 27

Then they must have starved to death, which would have served them right. (I wonder, BTW, if James knew what was happening to Paul?)

One thing to bear in mind is the unrestrained, hyperbolic style of invective in those days (and often today).

Another point: the hearing by Caiaphas was in secret, because he feared a tumult among the people.

[Jeannot]

The real problem with "antisemitic" is that it would include most Muslims, since Arabian Muslims are also a Semitic people. Who's descended from Shem and who isn't would be extremely difficult to prove one way or the other.

Please bear in mind also that Paul maintains that Jews remain the Chosen People. Like any other group, there's good and bad. And they are especially contentious; it's been said "Two Jews, three opinions." Also note how ridiculous it is to say "the Jews" (as some sloppy people do) killed Jesus. After all, Caiaphas had a trumped-up rushed hearing at nignt "for feat of the Jews" you might say--because he feared a tumult among the people.

The contentiousness of Jews is seen in the NT, where the vexed question of faith/works remains an issue to this day. You can certainly cite passages in Paul where faith sounds like the only thing that counts. But then you can also cite passages in both Paul and James (not to mention the gospels) where BOTH are seen as necesary.

In the prophets, works are stressed because faith was taken for granted. Those who turned from YHWH were called "whores," not atheists, because they usually turned to other gods. For the prophets, social justice was a major concern, and you still find this in James.