Chaucer

[AAAARRRRRRGH -- It happened again -- Please remove previous version of this post, prematurely sent]

This thread is a split-off from a discussion on Corinthians in which the initial focus on Corinthians shifted over to prejudiced readings of Scripture in general. Such prejudiced readings were epitomized in the fundie Rhutchins' post, which used an age-old interpretation of the Jesus story, founded on the last and least reliable of the Gospels, GJohn. In adopting this interpretation, Rhutchins clearly implied in his post that Jesus would have been a totally free man and would have died in old age had the Romans had full power in Jesus's time with no Jewish authorities acting as virtual Quislings at all! Further down in this post, I deal with the greater implications of what Rhutchins implied there.

It's most important, first off, to understand that the age-old and deeply prejudiced interpretation of the Jesus story as a "tell" against Jews, all Jews and nothing but the Jews comes down to the GJohn proposition that the Jews were totally alone in their culpability for Jesus's death and that the Romans were virtual angels in comparison. A look at the Synoptic Gospels, particularly the earliest one, Mark, shows a very, very different story. The Jewish high priest may have initiated the arrest, but it was Roman "justice" that was needed to complete the execution. Roman "justice" could have demurred, but Pilate, out of sheer cowardice, went ahead with the execution. This is all made quite clear in GMark. So Pilate, the ROMAN, is just as guilty as the high priest.

The age-old acceptance of the GJohn version as the whole story, a version that whitewashes the Romans and demonizes the Jewish people in extreme ways that none of the other Gospels quite do, has had deadly consequences. In fact, GJohn is not the whole story. Quite the contrary. But prejudiced readers for centuries have viewed GJohn as the whole story when it isn't. The results of the deadly consequences of accepting the GJohn story, the whole GJohn story and nothing but the GJohn story as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth have included pogroms without number against Jews for thousands of years, plus fostering a sick anti-Semitism in much biblical exegesis that persists to this very day.

On this board, the fundie Rhutchins is but one tiny example of that knee-jerk brand of biblical exegesis. His implying that the Romans by themselves would have afforded Jesus total freedom(!!) would be just absurd were it not reflective of a hate-filled anti-Semitism of a centuries-old vintage in addition. Rhutchins' post is totally in line with a fundie reading of GJohn that I am very familiar with, having grown up in the Deep South of the United States in the '50s and '60s and remembering vividly the complacent references in daily conversation to "those Jews" having killed "our Lord" and those "nice Romans" who jus' couldn't stop it. These attitudes were of a piece with the quotas for Jews in many an organization and club down there and with many another deeply prejudiced institution and social habit founded on the same bigotry.

It is absurd and naive to pretend that this age-old habit of pinning our entire reading of the Jesus story on GJohn isn't both the cause and the continued result of and from much Jewish persecution through the centuries since the Jesus story was first told. Rhutchins' post reflects a long-term, centuries-old, and deeply prejudiced reading of the Jesus story centered on GJohn, and I am frankly astonished and nauseated at the -- professed -- obliviousness of other posters here to Rhutchins' clear aping of that "time-honored tradition". The poster Storytime -- hardly a fundie! -- seems oblivious to this sickening "tradition" and has even sidetracked the issue by referencing freedom of speech. I am not seeking to muzzle Rhutchins; I am rather seeking to unmask Rhutchins' typical fundie dogma as the load of anti-Semitic tripe from untold centuries past that it really is.

Actually, since this split-off was the result of Rhutchins' bigoted idolizing of the Romans as virtual angels (YUK!!) and consequent demonizing of ALL Jews (DOUBLE YUK!!!!), this new thread is badly misnamed. This exchange does NOT have to do with anti-Semitism in ancient times at all. Nothing of that kind was even being discussed back in the Corinthians thread. It has to do with continued anti-Semitism TODAY, as shown very clearly in the way that fundies like Rhutchins grab on to GJohn and read its "implications" as virtual hagiography for the Romans (who virtually invented imperialism, for crying out loud) and quite overt demonization of "those Jews". The present Subject Head distorts the crucial center of the whole discussion that started in the Corinthians thread, with its vital question on how much the deeply prejudiced readings of the Jesus story TODAY, as propagated in fundie wink-wink land TODAY, foster Jew-hatred TODAY.

Chaucer

storytime

Why won't you answer my questions about Jacob and Esau? Have you read the OT? I know you want to blame Rome for originating anti-semitism but in order to understand its origin in Jew hatred you need to read how the Hebrew god installed that particular "hate" in the house of Abraham at the beginning via the covenant of circumcision. Basically, what you're saying is that it's ok for the Jew to hate Gentiles[Christians] but it is not ok for Gentiles[Christians] to hate Jews.

Each of these religions in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, "hate" each other for their own reasons of belief. All have suffered persecution, but you want to set the Jews on a pedestal of "holy" and without blame and suffering more than others. In this you have created idols and of which you want no one to speak against. Thus it angers you when someone says Rome would have given Jesus freedom in citizenship had he wanted it, whereas his own Jewish people demanded by their religious law, his death.

Where the Gentiles made their mistake was in believing that Jesus the Jew could be their Lord. But, his laws would never allow it, and by his laws he excluded the Gentiles while he was yet alive.

You really need to read the story of why Jesus the Jew hated what his father hated - the Gentiles.

storytime

Why anti-semitism(against the Jews) in those days?

Why is it thought that Romans should have loved the Jews and their tradition? Was hate for Jews a bad thing in those days? Why was it a good thing?

bacht

I don't know if there's a simple answer, but the fact that Jews were living in large numbers in the empire's cities was a factor.

Who said that? This is about politics and governance. The Romans were expected to keep the peace and protect the empire's borders. If Jews were perceived as troublemakers then the authorities had a duty to intervene.

When is hate ever a good thing?

Chaucer

Again, you totally miss the point (deliberately for sheer evasion?). I'm talking about anti-Semitism in BIBLICAL EXEGESIS of TODAY --

T O D A Y --

I'm not talking about any originating anti-Semitism back in ancient history at all. The Subject Head was unfortunately all wrong. Ancient anti-Semitism was not what we were discussing back in the Corinthians thread. TODAY, we still have in certain influential quarters a "time-honored tradition" (YUK!) of reading the Jesus story almost exclusively through the GJohn lens, which is lethally anti-Semitic. I should know because I grew up in the Deep South as part of a skeptic academic family during the '50s and the '60s where we were surrounded by that fundie outlook as the norm.

Now that has nothing to do with ancient Rome, and everything to do with knee-jerk fundies TODAY who use GJohn in order to stress how totally and "exclusively" guilty "them Jews" were in "killing our Lord" (YUK!!).

That said, the ancient Rome angle is important in terms of general oppression via imperialism. But there is no institutional anti-Semitism there; it is instead broader and lethal colonialism by ancient Rome that's involved there. But even that was whitewashed in Rhutchins' typical fundie take in his post, shifting blame for the crucifixion entirely over to the high priest only! Today's typical fundie whitewash of imperialistic colonial Rome in the Jesus story is indeed anti-Semitic. Framing ancient Rome as a paragon of freedom in the Jesus story is typically anti-Semitic, and the heavy dependence on GJohn is the dead giveaway! In fact, the Romans themselves were fully as oppressive in their own way as the high priest. But their oppressiveness was colonial and targeted at freethinkers like Jesus, not at Jews per se. It's the whitewashing of that nasty record that helps target Jews as the "only" Christ-killers, Mary and Amen:-(

On the one hand, the appalling groupthink that I'm spotlighting in the Jesus story is the colonialist collusion in executing a freethinker. On the other, the appalling groupthink that I'm spotlighting from today is the typical fundie use of GJohn as the basis for an age-old anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story as somehow a crime by Jews only! A disgusting reading that is as old as countless Mediaeval pogroms and as modern as today's Deep South headlines.

I'm appalled that no one on this board -- no one -- is disgusted by a fundie -- a fundie! -- invoking this anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story out of a demented text like GJohn. Why in the world are fellow skeptics here suddenly applauding -- applauding! -- a fundie's reading? Doesn't anyone here know anything about Deep South fundamentalism? What kind of ostrich-like response is going on here? Why is my calling a fundie -- a fundie! -- on his anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story suddenly turned into some kind of affront on a Skeptic board?! Doesn't anyone view the anti-Semitic reading from the fundie as the real affront here? Why is that O.K.?

Evasive posts about freedom of speech won't cut it. Jefferson says that speech, no matter how ludicrous, should still be free since reason can always combat it. Fine. So I'm applying reason and my bitter knowledge of a long and sickening history of anti-Semitic exegesis to Rhutchins' ludicrous post. How is my doing that an affront here? Why aren't the kneejerk anti-Semitic mouthings of a typical fundie like Rhutchins, spouting an age-old demonizing reading of GJohn and of the Jews' "exclusive guilt" (YUK!!) for "killing our Lord", also an affront? Aren't they? Do you really find that more attractive than some skeptic's calling him on it? That makes no sense! On a skeptic board! Why??!!

Chaucer

Toto

Chaucer - would you like to propose a name for this thread?

brianscott1977

There is some truth to the idea that Jesus was protected by Roman authority. For the most part Rome did not seem to care about religious movements as long as they remained small and did not spread throughout the empire.

On the other hand, they cared a lot about rebellion and violence in their empire. Roman oppression probably protected Jesus from being murdered earlier by his opponents.

You are right the Gospels have been falsely used to fuel anti-Semitism. None of the Gospels – not even John – actually lay all the blame on “the Jews.” Herod let Jesus be killed because he would not perform and miracle and Pilate knowingly sentenced an innocent man crucifixion. Some, though not all, of the early church kept the blame on the Romans. The Apostles’ Creed says that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” laying the blame fully on Pilate’s shoulders. The idea that "the Jews" killed Jesus is wrong on so many levels.

However, your “fundie” speech shows as much bigotry as I have ever heard in any anti-Semitic speech that did not actually call for violence.

storytime

We hate that which causes harm, death and destruction. Hate is then a good thing when applied properly.

Chaucer

Many thanks. Yes, please --

Anti-semitism In Biblical "Readings" (split from 1 Corinthians 11)

-- Best,

Chaucer

storytime

I'm not evading your concern about anti-semitism (why Gentiles oppose[hate] Judaism and the Jews who practice that religion. But what you are not facing is the reason for it's being. And you can only discover its true nature in the OT bible which was carried over into the NT story.

I live in the South, was brought up in the church teaching that the Jews killed Jesus. I don't think very many members even knew Jesus was a Jew. They seemed to imagine him as a White Supremacist[chosen]. Jesus was never portrayed as a black man, or Asian, Hindu, or Cherokee Indian. What I later wanted to know is WHY his own people hated him and petitioned Rome to carry out the execution. Today, I don't find Jew hatred from fundamentalists; instead I find that these same people have turned Israel[the Jews] into their idols. Israel is to be protected at any and all cost to the U.S. The majority of fundamentalists Christians have decided that because Jesus was a Jew and his return will be to Israel, they have now obligated themselves and must commit to an Israel first policy and agenda so much so they will turn their back on their own country, the USA. "The bible says those who bless Israel will be blessed". Some of the Jews like to reinforce this blessedness upon themselves by reminding the fundamentalists they are indeed obligated to Israel. Herein is the seriousness of their Christian ignorance as it doesn't hold regard for any opposition to Israeli decisions concerning military actions against any other country including the USA. The fundamentalist living in the South is not being educated in or as to why ancient people opposed "the Jews" or why "the Jews" were anti-semitic among themselves. You also are just as ignorant as the Southern fundamentalists you speak against. That's why you should read the OT and understand why people hated the Jews and why the Jews hated other peoples. Then you might be better able to confront and challenge the fundies you seem to hate with such passionate concern.

Now, due to the Jewish religion in its particular tradition, there will always be opposition to it's laws and opposition to those Jews who practice hate speech against non Jews. Religious Jews take their religion seriously and consistently speak out against Christianity and Islam. A lot of what they say is very damnable to both Christians and Muslims. Jesus is not their god-man. Allah is not their god.

You will not solve any problems accusing people of being anti-semitic when the Jews are anti-Christ and anti-Allah. Both have a right to set themselves in their portrayal of themselves. The best thing you can do is avoid unfounded accusations and try to point out their religions are based on ancient envy, greed, and a sky daddy that is a bogus belief. And do remember to duck and cover when necessary.