I first heard the idea that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus at about the age of 21. I was raised in a true Christian home, and honestly never heard this hogwash before.
In my family we are loyal only to the religion of the Bible. If you can't prove it by the Bible, it's not our belief. Like early Protestant Reformers, we reject the Catholic Church, but we also reject most of Protestantism as well. Thus our religion can't be defined by examining what a majority of Christians say or said at one time.
The idea of holding Jews responsible for the death of Jesus is totally foreign to the New Testament. The standard answer you'll hear to this nowadays is that we are all responsible for the death of Jesus: He died for our sins, and would have died for even a single one of us. That's theologically true, but I wanted to point out something that might mean more to those of a more secular mindset.
The fact is that all those responsible for the death of Jesus are dead. Noone living today is responsible for the death of Jesus in a strict sense. When the Bible talks of Jews and Romans crucifying Jesus, it nowhere suggests that ALL Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, but only the specific Jews of that generation who chose to be involved (mostly religious leaders, and not even including all of them). Genetic hereditary guilt is foreign to both the Old and New Testaments and is an idea condemned in Ezekiel 18. (Yes, the Catholic Church and the Reformer Calvin were totally, blasphemously wrong about this.) No Jew living today (or in the Middle Ages) is responsible for the death of Jesus.
There is a statement at the crucifixion of Jesus from the Jews involved when Pilate attempts to disclaim responsibility that might cause confusion. They said, "His blood be upon us and on our children." Let me assure you that no matter what they said, they did not cause God to change His mind about Ezekiel 18 and hold their children responsible for their actions. (Let me also assure you that even though Pilate washed his hands to proclaim his innocence, he was still thoroughly responsible for what he did, too.)
The Bible itself does not hold anyone living responsible for the death of Jesus, though it does teach the theology that He died because of our sins and we are in that sense responsible. The idea of killing Jews or anyone else because of the death of Jesus is not only absurd in the light of the religion of the New Testament, it's a blasphemous excuse for murder put forward by wicked men who dared to justify the blackness in their hearts by applying the name of God to their cause. As the Bible condemns those who would use the Lord's name in vain, I imagine these people receive some of the most severe condemnation imaginable.
Addendum: What I'm trying to say is that if Mel Gibson's new movie adheres strictly to the Bible, it will not be anti-semitic, even if it uses lines that have traditionally been interpreted by evil, twisted people as anti-semitic. I've heard tell that his movie is based not only on the Gospels but on the "visions" of some man from the 18th or 19th century, though, and I haven't seen the movie, so I'll reserve judgment.
Anti-semitism is not different, at its core, from other forms of racism : it files a bunch of very different individuals, who lived at different times and in different countries, under a same totem, which is then proposed as an object of hate to the crowds. And like most forms of racisms, (as we have seen recently during the ethnic wars in eastern Europe and in Africa, or as we see with the raise of anti-semitism in fundamentalist Muslim circles), it's actually pushed forward by people with an agenda: distract people from their own oppression and misery while they seek personal and dictatorial power for themselves. As George Orwell nicely summarized it in 1984, War is Peace, made up enemies to maintain internal peace. I imagine that your religion could consider anti-semitism as a form of idolatry.
Now considering Mel Gibson's upcoming, er, movie. I disagree with you, because a movie cannot, by nature, adhere stricly to the Bible. Why? Because as long as you're making images up -- and you have to, since you obviously lack photographs of Jesus, Pilate, Caiph, Judas, etc. -- you're doing interpretation. Well, the sole fact of directing a movie is already interpreting the story it tells, everybody who's familiar with the narrative techniques of cinema knows this. Imagine, for example, that even though each line of dialogue comes directly from the Bible, actors who play the Sanhedrin are deliberately made ugly and counterfeit, and speak in a guttural language (say, Aramaic), while Pilate is played by a DiCaprio-lookalike and speaks in a musical and harmonious language (say, Latin.) See my point?
Re:Mise en scene
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T16:22:26
"The fact is that all those responsible for the death of Jesus are dead." -- certainly one of the most sensible things one can say about anti-semitism
And it's completely secular, too, so it requires no theological overhead to accept. I'd like to be able to get all those professing Christianity as well as Jews and others to at least agree on the fact that the Bible doesn't have this bananas idea of blaming the Jews for the death of Christ, even if many professing Christians have said so. Unfortunately it is not so easy.
which is one of my favourite rant subjects
Mine, too, ever since I heard of the issue. I teach a 2nd and 3rd grade Bible class that passes through the first and second epistles to the thessalonians every two years, which contains one of the statements that is often taken out of context to support Christian anti-semitism. (Actually I've never heard a professing Christian use it that way, though I'm sure some do; I've heard it only from Jews who are under the impression that the New Testament itself promotes this viewpoint.) Though I would never have thought someone could get that idea from the context, I take great care to make sure the children understand exactly what the verse really does teach in context and mention the misinterpretation so they will not be confused if and when they should ever hear otherwise (at home or elsewhere).
Incidently, if anyone wants to compile a list of supposed verses of the New Testament that teach anti-semitism, I'll happily demonstrate from context the true meaning of each.
Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is just like blaming Americans for the death of Abraham Lincoln.
ROTFL! That may be the second most insightful statement on the subject.
:) Now considering Mel Gibson's upcoming, er, movie. I disagree with you, because a movie cannot, by nature, adhere stricly to the Bible. Why? Because as long as you're making images up -- and you have to, since you obviously lack photographs of Jesus, Pilate, Caiph, Judas, etc. -- you're doing interpretation. Well, the sole fact of directing a movie is already interpreting the story it tells, everybody who's familiar with the narrative techniques of cinema knows this. Imagine, for example, that even though each line of dialogue comes directly from the Bible, actors who play the Sanhedrin are deliberately made ugly and counterfeit, and speak in a guttural language (say, Aramaic), while Pilate is played by a DiCaprio-lookalike and speaks in a musical and harmonious language (say, Latin.) See my point?
Yes, but as neither you nor I have seen Gibson's movie yet (I presume), we can't pass judgment as to whether he might or might not have done anything to lay blame on the Jews. I would counter that deliberately altering their appearance in this matter would NOT qualify as adhering to the Biblical text. To me, any attempt to insert an idea not found in the Bible is a departure from the text, even if you still stick to it word for word. I've heard that noone comes out of the movie depicted as lily-white, including Pilate, so while I'm reserving judgment I feel fairly confident Gibson's movie is not anti-semitic, per se.Incidentally I've spent more time trying to convince Jews and others about this than Christians and professing Christians. Unfortunately the work of murderous zealots in past centuries have left tremendous scars that may never be healed. I have only heard statements blaming Jews for the death of Jesus pass from the lips of Christians I knew on two occasions; one was a person quoting another Christian they knew, while the other has not entered a church building or opened a Bible in nearly fifty years.
Re:Mise en scene
rafael on 2004-02-20T16:53:44
I haven't seen Gibson's movie, but I plan to do so, because I don't like having second-hand opinions. (I'll have to reread the Gospels beforehand, though.)Re:Mise en scene
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T16:25:12
Anti-semitism is not different, at its core, from other forms of racism : it files a bunch of very different individuals, who lived at different times and in different countries, under a same totem, which is then proposed as an object of hate to the crowds. And like most forms of racisms, (as we have seen recently during the ethnic wars in eastern Europe and in Africa, or as we see with the raise of anti-semitism in fundamentalist Muslim circles), it's actually pushed forward by people with an agenda: distract people from their own oppression and misery while they seek personal and dictatorial power for themselves. As George Orwell nicely summarized it in 1984, War is Peace, made up enemies to maintain internal peace. I imagine that your religion could consider anti-semitism as a form of idolatry.
Forgot to respond to this paragraph. I very much appreciate you pointing this out, because I hear it very commonly expressed that Hitler was just following the teachings of Christianity and/or Martin Luther or whatever, when the truth is he would have said or done anything for his power.
I imagine that your religion could consider anti-semitism as a form of idolatry.
I think we would. Much of it is based in covetousness, and the Bible specifically says covetousness is idolatry.
Thanks for the tip. I'll start spreading the word.
Boy, are those anti-semites going feel silly!
Re:Jews didn't kill Jesus? That's good news!
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T16:25:37
Man, I keep trying, but they don't seem to listen!
Re:Jesus was rocking the boat
pudge on 2004-02-25T18:34:20
if the movie depicts the politics that would motivate some Jews to want to kill Jesus, that'd be pretty interesting, IMHO. I'm kind of doubting that's what it does, since to Christians Jesus is the son of god, not a great revolutionary.
I don't know why you think that. Jesus as Revolutionary is throughout the New Testament. Why do you think most of his followers -- from John the Baptist, through the disciples, through to Paul -- were imprisoned and killed? And read John 11:45-57, where the plot by the Jewish leaders to have Jesus eliminated if described in some detail (I am not blaming Jews here, just describing the politics that you said you doubted would be in the movie, which are, in fact, in the movie:-).
Revolution is a very common theme for Christians and their interpretation of the meaning of the New Testament. The focus is on the spiritual and not the political, but it is quite clear in the Bible that Jesus pushing for a spiritual revolution caused the leaders to feel threatened politically.
This movie is not really about that -- it is about Jesus' suffering -- but if one were to be about that, I can't see how it would be "rocking the boat." It's right there in the Bible already.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
phillup on 2004-02-20T19:04:13
Thank you.
I myself am not particularly religious, but I was raised in a religious manner.
It seems to me that the entire "blame" issue seems to overlook some pretty important issues (and I'll not address the issue of Jesus and God being the same... since Jesus is referred to as the "son of God" I will refer to them as seperate entities... even tho that may not be so).
- Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
- Did God want Jesus to die?
- Could God have stopped the death of Jesus if desired?
- Did God put Jesus on earth?
It seems to me that many people overlook God's intentions.
And, if you do believe in God being "all mighty" how does that jive with what man did vs. what God wanted to happen?
And... don't even get me started on destiny/fate vs. free will... but, I think that is definitely intertwined in here somehow.Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
RobertX on 2004-02-20T19:35:06
I has to do with love. God could have created Adam and Eve as perfect beings that blindly did what he wanted. Where is the love there? Instead he created them innocent with the ability to choose to obey. God knowing they would "fall" into sin created a way that people could be reconciled back to a Holy, righteous, God who cannot wink at sin.
Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.
Q: Did God want Jesus to die?
A: It was the only way to forgive His people for their sins. So you tell me.
Q: Could God have stopped it?
A: That would have gone against His eternal purpose for it.
However, Jesus did claim did he was God, so you cannot seperate the two. God's purpose was fulfilled be Jesus' death on the cross.Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
rafael on 2004-02-20T19:49:35
It was the only way to forgive His people for their sins. -- IANAC, but I think I understand Christian mythology quite well. So I don't agree. John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature. So this was not the only way -- because God is infinitely powerful -- but this was the better way to have Christians have a personal relationship with Him. How could have God demonstrated the reality of resurrection whitout resurrecting at least one person ? (Christians please correct me if I'm just writing bullshit)Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T20:43:36
Well, you'll hear different perspectives from those who call themselves Christian. I unapologetically represent myself as a "true Christian" and reject Catholicism as well as most Protestant denominations. As I stated in my original journal entry, the idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine and thus not a part of my religion.
I've never heard Catholics express anything about John the Baptist in regard to original sin or not: I've only heard that claim made about Mary and Jesus. But I'm certain Catholics would not claim John the Baptist washed Jesus of his sin, original or any other, since they believe Jesus was born sin free and remained that way. (I am agreed, but I also believe every human being in history was born sin free. The Bible teaches this in Ezekiel 18.)
Jesus was not baptized to wash away sin; John in fact protested that he was not worthy to baptize Jesus, and that Jesus should baptize him. Jesus said He was being baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." My interpretation of that is that even though He did not need the forgiveness of sins through baptism, it was still a command of God through the prophet John that He needed to obey. I've never heard anyone of any form of Christianity say that Jesus had any sins forgiven in baptism; if you've heard anyone say otherwise, I stand in complete disagreement with them (as does the Bible).
The Biblical teaching is that sin may only be forgiven through a perfect blood sacrifice of immense worth and that only Jesus satisfied that sacrifice. The Old Testament taught that blood worked as a sacrifice because the blood was equal to the life of the creature, and represented the taking of another life as payment for the sin. The New Testament records that the penalty for sin is death and expands on the Old Testament teaching by teaching that the blood of animals offered in the Old Testament did not have enough worth to forgive sins permanently; those sins were ultimately forgiven by the death of Jesus on the cross, for anyone who obeyed God's commands before the crucifixion. The complete picture is that in all ages those who obey God are forgiven of their sins, but not through any worth of their own obedience, but through the worth of the sacrifice of Jesus.
It's interesting to me that you've exposed what I consider a flaw in the Catholic teaching of original sin (in addition to its disagreement with Ezekiel 18): it makes it out that God had a way to redeem people other than the death of Jesus. The true teaching of the Bible is that we need to be forgiven of sins we have personally committed, not anyone else's sins. Since the original sin doctrine distorts this they are saying we need to be forgiven of Adam's sin, even if we are newborn babies. (The teaching about babies needing forgiveness of sins is nothing less than blasphemy.) If they then teach that any one person could be born without that sin they are saying Jesus did not have to die.
Since the reality is that we have to be forgiven of sins we have committed and everyone was born sinless, the fact is that Jesus really did have to die to forgive this.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T20:46:37
Scripture references:
- Ezekiel 18
- Romans 6:23
- Matthew 3:13-17
- Hebrews 9:15 (Christ death atones for sins committed under the first covenant (Jewish Torah))
- Hebrews 10
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
rafael on 2004-02-20T21:23:03
The idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine. I quite like this theology, but living in a Catholic country, I'm obviously more familiar with the Catholic doctrine, which, IIRC, teaches that babies are not sin-free, even Jesus. I may be wrong, I'll have to check my sources.Most Catholics nowadays think that baptism is the only way to wash away the original sin. This is actually not a truly Catholic doctrine -- Augustine explains it quite well in the City of God: during the first centuries of Christianism, most people were baptised at the end of their lives; moreover most martyrs were young and hence unbaptised; but their martyrdom made them worth for heaven, so --qed-- baptism isn't necessary. However, the Catholic church needs money, and baptism as an institution is a great way to get some. (yes, I'm cynical, but I'll have to admit that I don't like Catholics very much, except a few old Jesuits.)
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
jdavidb on 2004-02-20T21:58:25
The Biblical teaching is that baptism is for washing away sin (Acts 22:16), but not for washing away original sin; it washes away one's own sin. In the New Testament noone EVER delayed baptism. (Examples: Acts 2:41, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 16:33, especially the last one.) The doctrine is that Christ is coming at any minute (I Thessalonians 5) completely unexpectedly and that after that event (or, of course, one's own death, which could also happen at any minute) there is no longer any chance to have one's sins forgiven. The Bible also teaches that one cannot be good enough to earn forgiveness of one's sins (Ephesians 2:8-9, Psalm 49:7-8), so even martyrdom cannot do that, no matter what Catholics say. (Baptism isn't an attempt to be "good enough to earn forgiveness," but is simply the commandment God gave to be initiated into the Christian faith at which point He grants forgiveness. The distinction seems lost on many Protestants, who claim all kinds of other reasons for baptism besides forgiveness of sins, as given in Acts 2:38, Romans 6, and I Peter 3:21.)
I have never heard of anyone charging for baptism, though I wouldn't be surprised. That might be only in Europe (though I really don't know but that Catholic churches might charge for baptism here in the U.S.). Most Christians I know will gladly baptize anywhere at any time of day or night upon request, and would never think of charging. (The thought has never entered my mind before.) Most Protestants I know will gladly schedule a baptism at some convenient date (once a month or once a year) since they don't think it's important enough to do immediately, as the Bible taught; I doubt they charge, but I've never checked. Even without charging it seems like the Protestants have more to gain financially from a baptism than Catholics, assuming the new member contributes, since they generally baptize adults rather than children.
:) Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
pudge on 2004-02-25T18:42:47
The Biblical teaching is that sin may only be forgiven through a perfect blood sacrifice of immense worth and that only Jesus satisfied that sacrifice.
Yes, but who decided that would be the method? And when He decided it, didn't he already know he would send his Son to die? It's sorta like me deciding that I will buy a Mac, and then saying "the only computer I can buy is a Mac," as though it were my only choice to begin with.
I agree that Jesus is the way, but not that God couldn't have chosen another way. Although, you could argue that God is perfect, so since this is the best way, it is therefore the only way He could have chosen, but that's at about the time I stop caring.:-)
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
RobertX on 2004-02-21T00:33:13
John the Baptist was a sinner. There are people "declared" righteous by God because of their belief in God and the Messiah.
However, if you read the scripture John the Baptist was confused himself when Jesus asked to be baptised. It wasn't because Jesus had sin, for he was sinless. That is why Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice. Jesus answers him "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It was a picture. In the OT the Aaronic priesthood was anointed with oil, so this was a picture to the Jews that Jesus was entering the time of His priesthood.
Jesus resurrected people before he went to the cross. So God did not need to send Jesus to the cross just to show that. Jesus went to the cross because when Adam and Eve sinned, God instituted a sacrifice that included the shedding of blood. Because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. That is why Jesus is called multiple times "the spotless lamb of God". Was there another way? We can speculate on that. But I would think that if there were another way for God to redeem His people than by pouring out His wrath on Jesus (while on the cross), He would have taken it.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
pudge on 2004-02-25T18:42:32
John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature.
That's not true, IMO. Nothing in the Bible suggests it, that I know of. John the Baptist was not washing anyone's sins away: baptism was only a symbol of a person's committment.
And beyond me seeing no suggestion that requires JB born without original sin, we see statements from people like Paul -- who went through an experience much like JB did -- saying all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Some take that as meaning all "peoples" have sinned, because in the context he was showing Jews that they are no better off than Gentiles, but I don't buy it.
So this was not the only way -- because God is infinitely powerful -- but this was the better way to have Christians have a personal relationship with Him.
I agree with that. God, for various reasons, chose this way because it was best, not because it was the only way.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
rafael on 2004-02-25T19:49:08
I checked in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and indeed, it seems that John the Baptist was cleansed from the stain of original sin in the womb. I think that Augustine wrote about this. Add this to the list of truths that differ between the different kinds of Christianisms.Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
pudge on 2004-02-25T20:40:47
I think what the passage means is that John the Baptist was the first to receive the Holy Spirit, just as the disciples did later in Acts, and as Christians have been since then. If that is the sense it is meant I'd agree, but I don't consider myself today not "tainted by original sin" just because the Holy Spirit is in me. Maybe it's just a semantic point.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
phillup on 2004-02-21T16:05:31
Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.
I guess my point was/is... how can anyone be to blame?
They were nothing but pawns.
Or... was there some way to "surprise" God and actually make something he willed not happen? Was there some way to foil the "plan"?
I just have a hard time believing that there is fate/destiny and free will at the same time.
I mean... it is kind of like me and my two year old boy. He can tell me "no"... but, at the end of the day... he is going to do what I say.
He really has no choice in the matter. I don't consider him to have free will. He will, eventually... but not until he is ready.
I could almost see the God/man relationship being the same... but... I can't tell you what is going to happen to my son tomorrow, or a week from now.
So, it really isn't the same at all.Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
RobertX on 2004-02-21T18:38:37
Free will is simple this...I can choose my individual actions within my nature. Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. After a person is saved I can choose to do the will of God because now I still have a sin nature but now my *spirit* is quickened. As simple as that. Free will has been so twisted to mean anything that it means nothing in most contexts.Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
jdavidb on 2004-02-23T15:42:48
Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.
The idea that people are inherently sinful is not found in the Bible, whether it be the idea that people inherit sin from Adam (contradicted in Ezekiel 18) or some other version. However, the Bible does teach that everyone sins (at least, those who live long enough). Before they sin, of course, they are sinless.
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
pudge on 2004-02-25T18:49:26
Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.
Not at all. The idea -- which is supported by the Bible -- is that a person will not choose God until God works in his heart. See Ephesians 1. I don't come down on any side of this debate, but there is clearly support for both positions.
The idea that people are inherently sinful is not found in the Bible
Sure it is. Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--"
Re:Jesus sacrificed himself...
zatoichi on 2004-02-26T01:42:32
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -- Romans 3:10-12
Why? Because God has not done a work on their hear and made their spirit alive.
(And being half German, it would be rather strange).
