AP
In new book, Benedict XVI explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for accusations against Jewish people as a whole
Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.
In “Jesus of Nazareth-Part II” excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.
Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.
While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren’t collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said Wednesday the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.
“Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of ‘Christ killer’ against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realized in the Holocaust,” said Elan Steinberg of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants.
The pope’s book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide charge “but seals it for a new generation of Catholics.”
The Catholic Church issued its most authoritative teaching on the issue in its 1965 Second Vatican Council document “Nostra Aetate,” which revolutionized the church’s relations with Jews by saying Christ’s death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today.
Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters were primarily responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.
The book is the second installment to Benedict’s 2007 “Jesus of Nazareth,” his first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years of Christ’s life and teachings. This second book, set to be released March 10, concerns the final part of Christ’s life, his death and resurrection.
The Vatican’s publishers provided a few excerpts Wednesday.
‘Jesus’ blood brings reconciliation’
In the book, Benedict re-enacts Jesus’ final hours, including his death sentence for blasphemy, then analyzes each Gospel account to explain why Jews as a whole cannot be blamed for it. Rather, Benedict concludes, it was the “Temple aristocracy” and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.
“How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?” Benedict asks.
He deconstructs one particular biblical account which has the crowd saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” – a phrase frequently cited as evidence of the collective guilt Jews bore and the curse that they carried as a result.
The phrase, from the Gospel of Matthew, has been so incendiary that director Mel Gibson was reportedly forced to drop it from the subtitles of his 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ,” although it remained in the spoken Aramaic.
But Benedict said Jesus’ death wasn’t about punishment, but rather salvation. Jesus’ blood, he said, “does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all.”
Benedict, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child in Nazi Germany, has made improving relations with Jews a priority of his pontificate. He has visited the Auschwitz Nazi death camp in Poland and Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.
But he also has had a few missteps that have drawn the ire of Jewish groups, most notably when in 2009 he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist Catholic bishop who had denied the extent of the Holocaust by saying no Jews were gassed during World War II.
Benedict has said that had he known Bishop Richard Williamson’s views about Jews he never would have lifted the excommunication, which was imposed in 1988 because Williamson was consecrated without papal consent. Williamson is a member of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which has rejected many Vatican II teachings, including the outreach to Jews contained in Nostra Aetate.
Separately, Jewish groups have been outraged that Benedict is moving Pope Pius XII closer to beatification, the first main hurdle to possible sainthood. Some Jews and historians have argued the World War II-era pope should have done more to prevent the Holocaust.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who writes frequently about spirituality, said the pope’s new book was a “ringing reaffirmation” of Nostra Aetate, which was passed during the Second Vatican Council, with the pope putting his “personal stamp on it in a way that’s irrefutable.”
“A Vatican Council is the highest teaching authority of the church,” Martin said. “Now that you have the pope’s reflections underlining it, I don’t know how much more authoritative you can get.”
Rabbi David Rosen, head of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee and a leader of Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said the pope’s book may make a bigger, more lasting mark than Nostra Aetate because the faithful tend to read Scripture and commentary more than church documents, particularly old church documents.
“It may be an obvious thing for Jews to present texts with commentaries, but normally with church magisterium, they present a document,” he said. “This is a pedagogical tool that he’s providing, so people will be able to interpret the text in keeping with orthodox Vatican teaching.”
Thanks Pope, Now pay up for all those Jews murdered by Catholics for the last 15 centuries. Start by returning to the State of Israel all Church property stolen from Jews or from those who stole property from Jews.
I think you have a theological problem!
prior to his Ascension. Among these primary sources, most scholars believe First Corinthians was written first, authored by Paul of Tarsus along with Sosthenes circa AD 55.
In Matthew, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and another Mary at his empty tomb. Later, the eleven disciples go to a mountain in Galilee to meet Jesus, who appears to the
m and commissions them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to make disciples of all people (the Great Commission).
Matthew 28
* As Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” were running from the empty tomb to inform the disciples that he is alive, Jesus tells the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee ahead of him to greet him (Matthew 28:10).
To the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galilee where Jesus had directed them.
John 20–21
To “Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee’s sons and two other of his disciples”, by Lake Tiberias, which led to the miraculous catch of 153 fish. The disciple whom Jesus loved was present in this group.
Mark 16
The ending of Mark varies substantially between ancient manuscripts, and scholars are in near universal agreement that the final portion of the traditional ending, in which all Mark’s resurrection appearances occur, is a later addition not present in the original version of Mark’s gospel. Most scholars view the lack of a resurrection appearance as having theological significance. Richard Burridge compares the ending of Mark to its beginning:
Mark’s narrative as we have it now ends as abruptly as it began. There was no introduction or background to Jesus’ arrival, and none for his departure. No one knew where he came from; no one knows where he has gone; and not many understood him when he was here
Read more:
Raymond E. Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian currently on the staff of Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California. Ans in his writings:
Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?
In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is “free of doctrinal or moral error”), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. “It is quite obvious,” Brown writes, “that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.”[1] “Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances,” explains Brown, “the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem.”[2] Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simples solution to the contradiction: “We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee.”[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, “Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative.”[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.
Read more:
Jew, you still have me confused. Rav Yehoshua ben Perachya and his student, Yeshu, lived a century and a half before the guy the christians believe in. How can this person be one and the same?
# 46
Shy, Mr. Student’s only argumentation why Yeshu HaNotzri from the Talmud cannot be jesus is based on the fact that the Yeshu HaNotzri from the Talmud was a student of Rabbi Yehoshu’a ben Pera’hyah but the latter lived ca. 150-200 years before jesus, conclusion: the Talmud’s Yeshu is another person.
My refutation of Mr. Student’s argumentation is as follows: there is a gap of ca. 165 years between the Sages’ and the christians’ calendars (i.e. counting of years) so that according to the Sages jesus would have been born ca. 165 years earlier than the christians claim and then there is no problem of jesus being Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Perahyah’s student in full accordance with the Talmud.
All this is simple and not that difficult to understand.
All Gospels say the first appearance was at Jerusalem.
I’m sorry, I do not comprehend your argument’s logic. Could you please clarify some more. Thanks.
Do you have an ans. to my questions # 38
Decent according to Jewish law is passed through the father not the mother.
Cast your ans.is inadequate on several points. Try again.
Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.
Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:
“A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings…. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform.”
There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words — with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.
Such a Text (NT) with so many errors and discrepancies logically can have no divine attributes attached to it.
“Rabban,” “Rabbi,” and “Rab.”
—The Title:
Hebrew term used as a title for those who are distinguished for learning, who are the authoritative teachers of the Law, and who are the appointed spiritual heads of the community. It is derived from the noun , which in Biblical Hebrew means “great” or “distinguished,” and in post-Biblical Hebrew, “master” in opposition to “slave” (Suk. ii. 9; Gi?. iv. 4) or “pupil” (Ab. i. 3). In the Palestinian schools the sages were addressed as “Rabbi” (my master). This term of respectful address gradually came to be used as a title, the pronominal suffix “i” (my) losing its significance with the frequent use of the term. Nathan ben Jehiel, in the “‘Aruk” (s.v. ), quotes the following passage from the letter addressed by Sherira Gaon to Jacob ben Nissim with regard to the origin and signification of the various titles derived from : “The title ‘Rab’ is Babylonian, and that of ‘Rabbi’ is Palestinian. This is evident from the fact that some of the tannaim and amoraim are called simply by their names without any title, e.g., Simon the Just, Antigonus of Soko, Jose ben Johanan; some bear the title ‘Rabbi,’ e.g., Rabbi Akiba, Rabbi Jose, etc.; others have the title ‘Mar,’ e.g., Mar ‘U?ba, Mar Yanu?a, etc.; others again bear the title ‘Rab,’ e.g., Rab Huna, Rab Judah, etc.; while still others have the title ‘Rabban.’ e.g., Rabban Gamaliel and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. The title ‘Rabbi’ is borne by the sages of Palestine, who were ordained there by the Sanhedrin in accordance with the custom handed down by the elders, and were denominated ‘Rabbi,’ and received authority to judge penal cases; while ‘Rab’ is the title of the Babylonian sages, who received their ordination in their colleges. The more ancient generations, however, which were far superior, had no such titles as ‘Rabban,’ ‘Rabbi,’ or ‘Rab,’ for either the Babylonian or Palestinian sages. This is evident from the fact that Hillel I., who came from Babylon, had not the title ‘Rabban’ prefixed to his name. Of the Prophets, also, who were very eminent, it is simply said, ‘Haggai the prophet,’ etc., ‘Ezra did not come up from Babylon,’ etc., the title ‘Rabban’ not being used. Indeed, this title is not met with earlier than the time of the patriarchate. It was first used of Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin. The title ‘Rabbi,’ too, came into vogue among those who received the laying on of hands at this period, as, for instance, Rabbi Zadok, Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and others, and dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward. Now the order of these titles is as follows: ‘Rabbi’ is greater than ‘Rab’; ‘Rabban,’ again, is greater than ‘Rabbi’; while the simple name is greater than ‘Rabban.’ Besides the presidents of the Sanhedrin no one is called ‘Rabban.'”
“Rabbi” in the Gospels.
Sherira’s statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grätz (“Gesch.” iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title “Rabbi” as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus’ disapprobation of the ambition of the Jewish doctors who love to be called by this title, and his admonition to his disciples not to suffer themselves to be so styled (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8).
A different account of the origin and the signification of the titles is given in the Tosefta to ‘Eduyot (end): “He who has disciples and whose disciples again have disciples is called ‘Rabbi’; when his disciples are forgotten [i.e., if he is so old that even his immediate disciples belong to the past age] he is called ‘Rabban’; and when the disciples of his disciples are also forgotten he is called simply by his own name.”
In modern times the term “Rabbi” (in Judæo-German, “Rab”) is used as a word of courtesy simulating the English “Mister.”
Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=30&letter=R&search=rabbi#ixzz1FnxdOVjc
# 35
Shy, since the christian counting places historical events ca. 165 years LATER than the Sages and Rabbi Yehoshu’a ben Perahya lived about 150-200 years before the date which the christians define as the birth year of jesus, so there is no contradiction and hence there is no refutation of the Yeshu HaNotzri from the Gemara being jesus. Once again, Mr. Student is a talented orator but his argumentation essentially relies on CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.
P.S. The Pharisees never refered to themselves as “Rabbi”. They only refered to Jesus as “Rabbi”
Romans 11:1-2
I say then , God has not rejected His people has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite a decendent of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin? God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.
The rest of the chapter is an explaination of why anti-semitism is forbidden.
In most of mid-evil Europe the Bible was written in latin,not a language spoken by the people attending the churches of the time.
The religious establishment interpreted and taught bits and portions as it suited them.
Jesus Christ is clearly a decendent of David thru Nathan whom Mary was decendent.
The trial held at night on passover was illegal and is consistant with the Pharisees comprimise with Rome for political power.
The Pharisees disappreared from history in 70 A.D.
I donot believe that the current Rabbinical system of Judaism is based on the teachings of the Pharisees but actually began around 200+ A.D.
Judas was never identified in the New Testament epistles as the representive of the Jewish people.
He dissapeared before the Crucifixtion.
The New Testement never repaced the Old testement but merely is an extention and culmination of Gods revelation.
The writers of which are all Jewish.
John 4:22 You worship what you do not know, but we (Jews)worship that which we know,FOR SALVATION IS FROM AMONG THE JEWS.
Carl Marx was an anti semite as well as the institution of Communism.
Carl Marx and the institution of Communism which he invented is anti-semitic.
Leek, it seems like Jews view passion plays as depicting conflict between Christians defending Jesus and Jews attacking him. But the reality is that the roster was Jewish on both sides – one set of Jews who believed Jesus was Messiah and another that believed he was an impostor. (While Jesus reached out to individual Gentiles from time to time, his twelve disciples and the majority of his followers were Jews.)
So, some Jews yelled ‘crucify him’ and other Jews loved him and pleaded for his life. The Romans had no clue either way and just wanted to avoid a potential uprising.
Somebody who called himself the King of the Jews, with a large number of followers, was certainly a threat to both the Roman and Jewish power structures. Were the Jewish religious leaders willing to yield power to Jesus? (…will they be willing to yield authority in the future to Messiah?) Was the Roman governor willing to yield authority? Of course not!
Even though I love the Passion of the Christ, I think brother Mel is definitely anti-Semitic and needs to grow spiritually in this area. It’s crazy, because it’s like he’s missing the message of his own movie – that Jesus knowingly endured the suffering and shame to save the lost!
Furthermore, the (Jewish) apostle Paul says that it was through Jesus’ rejection by his own Jewish brothers and sisters that Gentile salvation was even possible for folks like Mel and I. Like you said, it was all part of the plan.
I wince at the violence in the movie, but to downplay the reality of the gruesomeness is to downplay the sacrifice. To Christians, it helps us understand how much Jesus loves – not how much someone else hates.
People in the past have told me that I didn’t understand the situation then that Jews held the power despite the fact that the Romans were the ones running around with weapons and uniforms and holding trials. I think that sounds suspiciously close to Jews holding the power in Germany and that’s why they lost World War 1 as said over and over by Hitler, Goebbels, Streicher and their cronies.
The problem with Mel Gibson’s movie is it seemed to emphasize the suffering and dying of Jesus and how Jews supposedly yelled ‘crucify him.’ No surprise that Mel has come out on a couple of occasions as a real Antisemite.
I also wonder if indeed Jews killed Jesus then logically Jews should be sanctified and not vilified. Consider that Jesus was ‘supposed‘ to die. So generations of Jews are ‘responsible’ for diecide? And Catholics are called ‘Roman Catholic?’ Seems to me the Romans are absolved of any guilt simply because they converted.
Now a Pope comes out and says that Jews no longer have collective guilt. Are the worlds Christian lunatic fringe going to all of a sudden forget calling Jews ‘Christ Killers’ because of what he said? I doubt it. Even if all the Christian leaders from Evangelicals to Mormons to Lutherans to Russian Orthodox etc come out and say it, it wouldn’t change a thing. I could be wrong. Maybe someday the play at Oberramergau won’t cause antisemitic incidents. Not in my lifetime or my daughters lifetime or even her daughters lifetime but someday?
(1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We airheads are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?
(2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We airheads notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we airheads notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?
(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?
That’s what happens when we have to deal with lamers like you.
Calvary, you’re dealing with airheads here.
Excellent. In which case the personalities cannot be one and the same unless… unless the christians used this 200 year old case to weave an actual human figure around their pagan cosmological myth of a deity.
Thanks for strengthening my point. Here: buy this book (thanks to Yamit for the recommendation over a year ago). It’s a long read and sometimes tedious but you will get a very clear picture of what Paul was most likely hawking versus the gospels the church clobbered together afterward to completely revise one fairy tale into another.
A very forgettable film.
Huh?
The Nazis built on millennia of myths and stereotypes to dehumanize utterly the Jews in the public mind, paving the way for the endlosung (final solution). Skilful deployment of the ‘methodology’ of antisemitism (scapegoating, demonization, Christian animosity, racialism, nationalism, supremacy, fear and superstition) led to the logical conclusion of industrially planned genocide of the Jews. German Judenhass (Jew hatred) influenced most ‘neutral’ and ‘allied’ countries to reject Jewish asylum seekers, thereby indirectly sentencing millions to their deaths.
That Jesus was Jewish and crucified by the Romans were two major stumbling blocks to the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Many scholars believe that the Gospels were written with the desire to reach out to the Roman emperors in order to preserve the religion and ensure its longevity. To achieve this, the responsibility of the Romans for Jesus’ death needed to be minimized and his ‘Jewishness’ downplayed. This historical revisionism is evidenced by early Christian texts attributing blame to Pontius Pilate and Emperor Tiberius whereas later texts refer to ‘the Jews’ and also paint the Romans in a more sympathetic light. As Christianity spread throughout Europe, further embellishments would be added to Christian doctrine regarding the death of Christ which would set in motion two millennia of anti-Jewish antagonism.
The Church soon developed a symbolic opposition to all things Jewish. Jews were held up as the demonic other, the ‘black and treacherous Judas’, and the ‘synagogue of Satan’. Christian theologians and emperors would wax poetic in their demonization of the Jews, and churches would be adorned with ‘sacred art’ depicting the righteous denigration of Judaism. By 534, the Justinian Code would degrade Jews to second-class citizens. Attempting to build a synagogue would be punished by death and forfeiture of all assets. The Toledo Synods of seventh-century Spain forced Jewish children to live with Christian families after the age of seven.
European crusaders en route to ‘liberate’ Jerusalem from Islam, murdered thousands of Jews at the close of the 11th century. The Church forced the remaining Jews to wear distinctive clothing (yellow badges in France, pointy hats in Germany) in order to discourage relations with Christians. Hebrew scriptures were ordered by the Popes to be destroyed in large public book-burning gatherings in local town squares throughout Europe. Passion plays were used to reinforce Jewish responsibility for the death of Christ and other anti-Jewish transmissions and were often followed by pogroms. ‘Blood libel’ surfaced as part of the demonology of ‘the Jew’, appearing first in 1144 England where Jews would be eventually expelled after a series of pogroms. The most famous blood libel accusation involved the allegation of a ritual murder of a young boy in Italy, Simon, in 1475 who was later made a saint (the official Catholic Church account lasted until 1950). The Inquisition established the notion of blood purity–anyone with an eighth Jewish blood was considered to be impure even if they had converted to Christianity.
By the mid-19th century, hatred of Jews was seen through the lens of racialism. The ‘Jewish problem’ could no longer be solved through conversion since the inherently evil Jewish ‘race’ was incurable. French philosopher Ernest Renan posited the notion of Aryan racial supremacy over the superficial ‘Semitic mind’. His German contemporary, Paul de Lagarde, mobilized such concepts in Prussia where he advocated the complete destruction of European Jewry, whom he saw as ‘bacilli and tapeworms’. It was around this time that German journalist Wilhelm Marr founded the League of Antisemites in 1879, which was the first organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews and advocating their forced removal from the country.
I’m Gonna Git You Sucka
Ahh yess…a blast from the past.
laura wrote:
christianity is ambivalent:
– they hate Jews because we have something they want to have: election by G-d
– they don’t want to kill us but rather to make us suffer enough until we “accept” that they are right
The nazi genocide of the Jews was not motivated by Christian theology.
#3 Shy, the Gemara says
Now, Mr. Student’s argumentation is that the Yeshu HaNotzri in the Talmud cannot be the jesus from the “new testament” since there is a time interval of ca. 150-200 years. However, it seems that Mr. Student never heard of the fact that the Sages in the Talmud have a different counting, differing about 165 years from that of the christians.
#16 Shmuel, the fact, related in the Talmud [cf. Sanhedrin 43a] that Jesus the Nazarene was judged by a “Beth Din” (Rabbinic Court) and hung, this is approved by Maimonides in “The Laws of the Kings and their Wars” chapter 11, Halakhot 11 and 12, cf. uncensored Kappach edition, p. 353
You would’ve needed more than a second floor, you would have needed Teddy!
Plus they bring their wives and kids!
I was gonna build a 2nd floor but Moses said nah-ah.
You have a MIGHTY FULL SUCKKAH there 😉
LEAVE ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, MOSES, AARON, JOSEPH AND DAVID ALONE!!!
(Brushing up on my Ushpizin! 🙂 )
Try Moses 🙂
Leave Einstein Alone!!!!
Leave S.Freud Alone!!!
LEAVE KARL MARX ALONE!!!
It never fails to amaze me how little the Jewish people know about the most influential Jew of all time. Instead, there’s a great willingness to believe the worst and to avoid careful consideration at all cost.
In terms of who is to blame for ‘killing’ Jesus, the answer according to the Tanakh, the New Testament, and Jesus himself is – the sinner, anyone who knows that their sin is a barrier to a relationship with God.
Jesus dying on the cross for the sinner was the reason and purpose of his coming. It was not an accident. If you want to assign blame, then you need to look inward.
Timeline of the passion:
According to the “new” testament, which has “replaced” the “old” testament, Jesus presided over a Passover Seder in Jerusalem, and pointed out that he himself was the “paschal lamb” (the basis of the christian mass). Jewish policemen then arrested him in the middle of the night of Passover (only celebrated for one day at that time). They brought him to a trial by the “sanhedrin” presided over by the High Priest, either at night or early morning (the time when the priests performed the daytime Passover sacrifice in the Temple).
So what’s wrong with this picture? Everything. Jewish law forbids holding capital trials at night, as well as on the day of festivals. So some christians say the “last supper” occurred earlier. If so, it would not have been a Passover Seder, and jesus would not have been the “paschal lamb” (which can equally be either a lamb or a goat).
Christians killing Jews for two thousand years over this fairy tale is disgusting.
Shy, that’s not exactly my idea of hope.
For that matter for him there is no hope.
He is no more than “An acorn community organizing pamphlet distributing anti-Semite, pretending to be a Christian (for political purpose) who embraces Islam, incompetent president”
I hope so Shy, I hope so.
Ron, the renditions of how Jesus met his death in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John don’t tally. Mark, the first story-teller, has no historical foundation to base himself on. The lies just grow bigger and bigger until Luke and John depicted Pontius Pilot as an angel or a reluctant bystander. “The Jews” can be found 79 times (count ’em) in John’s account, in the sense of “them”, not “us”.
John 8:31 has the Jews depicted as “the children of the devil”. Thanks to your Pope, we can now shout all together in interfaith unison: “Up yours, Johnny!”. Go ahead, Ron, say it. “The truth will set you free.”
Anti-God offences can be forgiven only by God. The Pope is a mere human being, just like the chief man-in-robe of any religion. If he has exonerated the Jews it is a joke. Jews have paid the price for crucifying Jesus Christ. Since then they seem to have been forgiven by God, as otherwise Jews and Israel would not be what they are today.
keelie, ShyGuy,
What the pope announced is what a majority of Catholic believed for years, he just never asked.
We were never part of the blame game.
I don’t see a single rant here.
I don’t know exactly what some of you people want at this point in time, but your rants sound quite pathetic… a little on the “Islamic” tone of things it seems.
I’ve been just as incensed with the Catholic church as anyone – in fact it came to a head when I visited Yad Vashem and listened to some of the commentaries – but I somehow recognize that a little rational thinking by some members of that church is something that could be built upon… if it sticks with the masses.
The Catholics seem to be on a roll:
No more christ-killers
No more racks and hooks
No more virgin’s
Dirty looks
Hold your breath.
I’m waiting for the Jews to stop accusing Christians of being Jew-killers.
Jew, see the following article: The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud.
of course, ratzinger holds that the “Jewish People as a whole cannot be held responsible” for the death of the christian god-man since in the eyes of the church there is no such thing like a Jewish people: all men are individuals and as such they should join the “christian people”. of course, you do not enter into this “christian people” by the fact that you are born to parents who belong to this “christian people” (since birth is the effect of dirty sexual interaction) but one enters this “christian people” by a ritual, the emergence in “holy christian waters” and then this act has to be reiterated a second time by drinking the real blood of jesus and eating the real flesh of jesus… bon appetit!
however: has ratzinger payed attention to the fact that during the whole middle ages, when Jews allover europe were murderd and persecuted, there was NOT A SINGLE RABBI WHO EXPLICITELY DENIED THAT THE JEWS KILLED jesus? because there is a Jewish tradition, held secrete, that jesus was not crusified by the romans but hanged by the Sanhedrin. of course, the latter is very very shameful for the church and the former is much much more pathetic. therefor the gospels opt for the former…….
I love it when christians – in this case, the “Big Kahuna” himself! – admit their “holy book” is the gospel fiction. Frankly, if I was one of you Catholics, I would boil him in oil first and then put him on the rack to extract a confession. Doing it in standard sequence is so yesteryear!
In any case, whether there was or wasn’t a Jesus character and whether we killed him (Sadducee priests? Pharisee sages? Toss a coin!) or whether the Romans did or whether he caught a charter boat to India, is irrelevant as far as Judaism is concerned.