Milton

You are, as fatherphil, using something outside physical realm. I am not appealing to no deeper spiritual truth, nor some deeper problem with omniscience.

I merely stated that, no matter by what force or pre-ordained destiny, the Jews and the Romans were participants. That undeniable. That all of this was pre-ordained does not make it disappear, it merely adds a different understanding of why it all happened--not how it happened.

From the perspective of predestination, God's omnipotentce and omniscience, there is no such thing as "fault." Fault implies wrong, mistake, error, etc. This is not possible from a God's neutral stand.

God creates and everything He creates is exactly as He wants.

Marduk

I don’t see why anyone would blame the Jews at all, they were doing exactly what the Bible told them to do, that was their job. Someone commits blasphemy or violates the Sabbath, they get whacked.
I’m not saying this makes sense, but it’s spelled out quite clearly in Leviticus & Deuteronomy.

brighid

No, it certainly is deniable because we have no substantial or credible outside evidence that anything in the gospels happened as alleged. We have a story about a man that was allegedly crucified and that is it. It is a story and one that scholars, scientists and theologans have attempted to prove for centuries, and yet to no avail.



Well, as an atheist I don't believe in anything outside the physical realm so I can assure you that I am not appealing to any "deeper spiritual truth", but merely attempting to reconcile the alleged nature of this God in this myth and what we actually know about the real world. If this God is omniscient, etc. the Jews and the Romans aren't to blame for being mere puppets in a pre-ordained theatrical performance. However, in the real world ... and with the evidence we do have (which is paltry and does not support the Gospel accounts) it seems that we cannot accurately conclude that any of it ever happened. For the sake of argument we can presume otherwise and attempt to come to a more realistic and probable conclusion by examining what we do know.


Then man has no free will and cannot be responsible for the "sins" he commits and therefore there was never any need for a blood sacrifice to redeem us from that which we do not control.

Brighid

fatherphil

considering the fact that He was loved and supported by jews and that His message was perpetuated by jews, could you also say that his resurrection was celebrated and his birth was welcomed by "the jews"?

or how about saying that reginald denny was stomped by "the blacks" or james byrd jr. was dragged to death by "the whites"?

certainly a discussion could be raised about whether the Gospel authors had intended the text to be anti-semetic or has it been translated to come off that way. or if it is even anti-semetic in the first place. certainly it was written at a time that predated some of the most egregious offenses committed against the jewish people.

Milton

Yes, "the jews who loved Him". Remember, I did not say "all Jews", I only said that the ones who played the biggest role in the crucifixion were Jews, and Romans.

Sorry, I know not those people you speak of.

How could the Scripture be anti-semitic? Could you explain that?

brighid

One could look to the love Paul had for the Jews (which of course is a bit of sarcasm), and then look to the ruling Roman Empire that "assembeled" the gospels and their relationship with the Jews, the examine the historical record that Catholic Church has with the Jews (and also responsible for translation, editing and adding/removing certain Biblical books) and it is not difficult to see an anti-semetic motivation, as well as result.

Brighid

Milton

I am talking about the Gospels, not Paul. And even with that, there is no way you could make it anti-semitic. Furthermore, even if it spoke against a certain tradition, it is not promoting agression against anyone.

brighid

Thanks for the clarification, but you did originally say "scripture."

I am not sure that the Gospels deliberately promote anti-semitism, but when looked at within the context of Scripture it doesn't bode well for Christian claims of anti-semitism such as Jesus calling Jews dogs, devils, etc. I don't think the Gospels can be removed from Scripture when discussing the development of anti-semitism as it is disseminated through Christianity.

Brighid

fatherphil

i think brig has a point about the catholic church's motives.
the use of the term "the jews" in the accounts of Jesus' trial could be inflamitory when it was the religious leaders who incited the population to cry for crucifiction. the use of the word "mob" would have been more accurate since their religious/cultural affiliation had little to do with the outcome of the story. there also seems to be an effort to make the roman part in this innocent. but you know, this story to me is so deep and has implications on so many different levels that i really believe God's message comes through regardless of the extent that man's hands were on it.

Milton

Exactly. The Scripture relating to the story of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Not the Scriptures as an overall.

What the Scriptures (overall) do is reject the previous superiority of the Jews, which had now become co-inheritors with the world.

Now, if we look to the Old Testament, then we would definately find why so many would seem to dislike or hate the Jews.