Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why do some Christians hate some other Christians (e.g. Catholics vs Protestants)? Why do some Muslims hate some other Muslims (e.g. Sunni vs Shia)?

Narcissism of small differences.

And scapegoating disciplines the sect / tribe (Girard).

Besides, early evangelists couldn't proselytize to Roman citizens that an official of Rome had lynched the very Lord who would "save" them, so the propaganda (Gospels) had to blame the "Jewish mob" - thus, by extension all Jews in perpetuity - of "deicide" that had exhorted Pilate to "Crucify him!" (i.e. blood libel)

Muslim antisemitism merely plagiarizes Christian antisemitism. Such is history.

Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", forgiving sins, and demanding faith in him) and welcomed non-Jews into the fold, while non-Christian Jews rejected him and his message - and even had him killed.

I don't know much about Muslim alleged hatred of Jews. I know that many Muslims resent the theft of Palestine for a Jewish homeland, but that's relatively recent.

There's a billion reasons for this. Historically, Jews were excluded from many professions but one of the professions that they were allowed to do was money-lending which of course got them very popular. /s

In New York today we're seeing a very sad phenomenon; Hasidic Jews are big targets because of certain unfair practices that they're accused of but also because of how insular they're accused of being. They're also extremely visible. If you looked at Nazi propaganda there's a similarity here: Jews are portrayed as being insular, only caring about themselves, and from there the Nazis additionally portray them as dirty and just a general blight upon humanity.

I see some of this rhetoric echoed today in reddit threads. Not so much the "dirty" part, but certainly the part about Jews being insular, not caring about anyone else except themselves, being unfair landlords etc. and that these attacks are basically just "punching up." It's interesting because no one is really justifying the attacks, they just claim to be "providing context."

For the record, I was raised a secular Jew and I can tell you that secular Jews tend to avoid Hasidic Jews. Very interesting debate about this going on within the Jewish community between those who support the Hasids and those who don't.

I doubt any conservative and bigotry-inclined Christians or Muslims would like Jesus very much if he were alive. So there's that.

Darn brown-skinned, tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie!

They all worship a version of Jesus that is a projection of their own worldview and desires, and not necessarily the Jesus portrayed in the Bible or even through historical analysis.

Jesus was a Jew.

Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There's a paradox here. Set aside all the politics that has now suffused the middle-east with people dying on both sides of the dividing line and consider only the religious aspect of the issue. The only reason I can think of for jew-hating is that the jews killed the son of god or a prophet, your pick. However, quite oddly, these same jew-haters also believe that Jesus died for our sins, as if to say that Jesus was destined for death and only by dying could he redeem the sins of humanity. Ergo, all of us should actually appreciate the jews for offing Jesus for they did so by the will of god. Wouldn't you love a person who would take up the infinitely horrible task of killing by torture no less a person than the son of god and that too so that you may be redeemed for your sins?

Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why do some Buddhists and Hindus hate Jews? Why do some Buddhists and Hindus hate Tengrists? Hate is a common feature in humanity. Even Christians either tremendously dislike others even if they for whatever reason claim not "hate" others. anger, dislike and hate is a spectrum.

Besides, early evangelists couldn't proselytize to Roman citizens that an official of Rome had lynched the very Lord who would "save" them, so the propaganda (Gospels) had to blame the "Jewish mob" - thus, by extension all Jews in perpetuity - of "deicide" who extorted Pilate to "Crucify him!" (i.e. blood libel)

Muslim antisemitism merely plagiarizes Christian antisemitism. Such is history. — 180 Proof

what a bunch of crap.

The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", forgiving sins, and demanding faith in him) and welcomed non-Jews into the fold, while non-Christian Jews rejected him and his message - and even had him killed. — Relativist

actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it and in fact he went on to say that not a "tittle" of the law would be undermined until some distant future event. Many christians feel there are no negative repercussions for just about ignoring both the old testament as well as the new testament. From the 4th commandment to turning the other cheek, modern christians do a great job of saying they can do what they want as as long as they comply with R.I.N.O politics.

I'm not saying they aren't saved but in compliance with 1st Corinthians chapter 3 they aren't doing very well.

Some Jews hate Christians. Some Christians hate Jews. And some of group A hates group B.

Some (keyword some) of Group A hates all of group B. Insert any group into A and any group into B.

Narcissism of small differences. — 180 Proof

I once asked my (Jehova's witness) grandmother why she thought all the other churches were wrong...

She said "because they think Jesus died on a cross!"....

"So what" was my response...

"If they're wrong about that then they're probably wrong about other things too"...

And so I became an atheist within the decade..

:up:

actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it and in fact he went on to say that not a "tittle" of the law would be undermined until some distant future event. — christian2017

That's what the author of Matthew (whoever that may have been) claimed Jesus said, but I don't think any Christians today keep kosher. Even Paul, writing before Matthew, believed it unnecessary.

Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible.

Matthew 27:24-25

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood;[a] see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

It's one the most obnoxious and absolutely disgusting things in the Holy Bible. Not only a totally absurd statement that crowd would ever give, but also the white-washing of the "real killers" of Jesus, the Romans, is really simply politics. At least in merit of the Bible, there are other versions of the life of Jesus, and nobody else recollects such absurd things to have happened I think. But Christians do stick to Matthew on this.

I guess it wouldn't have been a great way to try to spread Christianity in a ROMAN empire by stating that "Oh btw you killed our Messiah, so you what you have done is Deicide. But feel free to join us. ".

With the Muslims,

Mohammed turned first to the Jews, because obviously he did have the same God in mind (that's why Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic Religions). They weren't interested. So that among other things, it didn't turn well either.

When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible. — ssu

It used to be. Nowadays it's because of 'Israel' and the various unpleasant Zionist activities and actions. The zionists desperately try to associate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, desperately assisted by the British tory press as part of its smear campaign against Mr Corbyn. Some mugs really fall for it, I suppose, though most are just pretending.

Besides, early evangelists couldn't proselytize to Roman citizens that an official of Rome had lynched the very Lord who would "save" them, so the propaganda (Gospels) had to blame the "Jewish mob" - thus, by extension all Jews in perpetuity - of "deicide" who extorted Pilate to "Crucify him!" (i.e. blood libel)

Muslim antisemitism merely plagiarizes Christian antisemitism. Such is history. — 180 Proof

Good points.

With the Christian hatred, as others pointed out, it is the deicide charge in Matthew and John mainly. As a complete atheist and historically-minded person (not theological/propagandist history) on this, what I see that happened was a basically ethnic-tribal religion (Judaism) had its own mythological history and set of laws. People such as Paul of Tarsus used the platform of this obscure Jewish figure (Jesus) to make a new sort of ideology whereby the Jewish god comes in the form of a man (or son of man or son of god or some variant of all three), and is "sacrificed" for your sins. Thus, somehow the old tribal Mosaic law is no longer necessary and thus anyone who is not of the tribal religion is "saved" by this event if they "believe". Besides the fact that this is all nonsense horseshit made up in ancient times, what it effectively did was steal a tribal religion's historical myths and then PERSECUTED the very people who invented them for not following their own tribal historical myths correctly. Think about this.. This is CRAZY. It is as if an Englishman or a Frenchman came into China and said, "Hey we REALLY understand Confucius better than you Chinese do!". Are you nuts?? You cannot steal a culture's myths, change their meaning and then kill off the original copywriters to make your "twist" on it legitimate. The same can be said happened in Islam. Jewish historical-myths were taken, changed to fit an Arabian setting and then when local Arabian Jews were like, "That's not how the stories go.." he got angry and turned against them. This along with other politics of tribal affiliations and political alliances, etc.

What was probably the case was Jesus fit very firmly in his cultural context of 1st century Judea. Based on his sayings and his outward focus, he was probably a radical or reformist Pharisee (focused on the margins of society and intent behind the law). He had his own opinions on Mosaic law (as there was no INTERPRETATION of the law codified yet in anything like a Talmud, at least for the Pharisee sect). Also, he was probably an apocalyptic Pharisee which made him unusual as most Pharisees were "wait and see". They knew too much focus on End of Times would get people killed by Roman authority. Thus by going to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" and getting them to be what he thought was better Jews, he thought the hastening of the Kingdom of God would occur. He probably incorporated that part from the same ideas as John the Baptist who came right before him. When he went to Jerusalem, he probably thought the Kingdom of God was literally going to start happening, and he was going to do some miraculous event. I have a feeling, the most historical lines in the whole New Testament was, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" If not whitewashed, that actually indicates that he really thought hew as going to get something done to change things and this didn't happen. Pontius Pilate (noted by Josephus and Roman historians as overly ruthless, even for Rome) had him crucified, like almost every other Jewish claimant to be the Jewish king. Oh, it didn't help it happened on Passover, the very holiday that Rome looks for Jewish "freedom fighters" and messianic claimants because it was a holiday revolving around liberation from a foreign culture (mythological Exodus story).. Rome knew this and acted swiftly. At that time, the High Priests and the Temple priests in general were in the pockets of Rome and were essentially their lackeys, helping them keep "order". This all makes sense. Jews that were of the radical Pharisee sort, Apocalyptic types, One -off Messiah claimants, Essenes, and Zealots would be not looked upon kindly if they acted up against Rome or Temple Priestly authority.

Anyways, a couple decades later, Paul's ideas of the death/resurrection of Jesus set the stage for Replacement Theology.. whereby the "new" Israel were believers in Jesus. Interestingly, early Gentile Christianity represented by people like Marcion wanted to completely detach from the "Old Testament" as he thought it might even be a separate god. However, in Roman society, ancient cultures were deemed more legitimate than "new age" innovations. Thus, early gentile Christians realized that to spread the theology of Paul (Jesus died for your sins), they NEEDED to attach the idea to a culture that was more ancient (Judean/Jewish culture) to have it seen as more legitimate amongst the converts around the Mediterranean. So, this is what the early "Church Fathers" did and succeeded in converting most gentiles to the new religion by the year 400 CE. Thus, the original Jewish Jesus sect died out basically in those first couple centuries. The Pauline gentile variant spread. With the idea of Replacement Theology, Jews were considered to be stubbornly "wrong" in interpreting their own religion. They needed to be persecuted to be corrected. Then of course the whitewashing of Jesus' death so that they are deemed as "Christ-killers" etc. This made Judaism even more insular as it needed to protect itself from interference and persecution. The rest is history. That hatred permeated in various forms throughout history up until the 20th and 21st century. So in the end it is the very basis of Christianity (Replacement Theology) to "kill" the original copywriters and "correct" that culture's own ideas about its mythological history. Again, that's crazy.

Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef would no doubt (if he were not himself most probably a myth) approve of the following Not-So-Good News:

With the Christian hatred, as others pointed out, it is the deicide charge in Matthew and John mainly. As a complete atheist and historically-minded person (not theological/propagandist history) on this, what I see that happened was a basically ethnic-tribal religion (Judaism) had its own mythological history and set of laws. People such as Paul of Tarsus used the platform of this obscure Jewish figure (Jesus) to make a new sort of ideology whereby the Jewish god comes in the form of a man (or son of man or son of god or some variant of all three), and is "sacrificed" for your sins. Thus, somehow the old tribal Mosaic law is no longer necessary and thus anyone who is not of the tribal religion is "saved" by this event if they "believe". Besides the fact that this is all nonsense horseshit made up in ancient times, what it effectively did was steal a tribal religion's historical myths and then PERSECUTED the very people who invented them for not following their own tribal historical myths correctly.

[ ... ]

You cannot steal a culture's myths, change their meaning and then kill off the original copywriters to make your "twist" on it legitimate. The same can be said happened in Islam. Jewish historical-myths were taken, changed to fit an Arabian setting and then when local Arabian Jews were like, "That's not how the stories go.." he got angry and turned against them. This along with other politics of tribal affiliations and political alliances, etc.

What was probably the case was Jesus fit very firmly in his cultural context of 1st century Judea. Based on his sayings and his outward focus, he was probably a radical or reformist Pharisee (focused on the margins of society and intent behind the law). He had his own opinions on Mosaic law (as there was no INTERPRETATION of the law codified yet in anything like a Talmud, at least for the Pharisee sect). Also, he was probably an apocalyptic Pharisee which made him unusual as most Pharisees were "wait and see". They knew too much focus on End of Times would get people killed by Roman authority. Thus by going to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" and getting them to be what he thought was better Jews, he thought the hastening of the Kingdom of God would occur. He probably incorporated that part from the same ideas as John the Baptist who came right before him. When he went to Jerusalem, he probably thought the Kingdom of God was literally going to start happening, and he was going to do some miraculous event. I have a feeling, the most historical lines in the whole New Testament was, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" If not whitewashed, that actually indicates that he really thought hew as going to get something done to change things and this didn't happen. Pontius Pilate (noted by Josephus and Roman historians as overly ruthless, even for Rome) had him crucified, like almost every other Jewish claimant to be the Jewish king. Oh, it didn't help it happened on Passover, the very holiday that Rome looks for Jewish "freedom fighters" and messianic claimants because it was a holiday revolving around liberation from a foreign culture (mythological Exodus story).. Rome knew this and acted swiftly. At that time, the High Priests and the Temple priests in general were in the pockets of Rome and were essentially their lackeys, helping them keep "order". This all makes sense. Jews that were of the radical Pharisee sort, Apocalyptic types, One -off Messiah claimants, Essenes, and Zealotswould be not looked upon kindly if they acted up against Rome or Temple Priestly authority.

Anyways, a couple decades later, Paul's ideas of the death/resurrection of Jesus set the stage for Replacement Theology.. whereby the "new" Israel were believers in Jesus. Interestingly, early Gentile Christianity represented by people like Marcion wanted to completely detach from the "Old Testament" as he thought it might even be a separate god. However, in Roman society, ancient cultures were deemed more legitimate than "new age" innovations. Thus, early gentile Christians realized that to spread the theology of Paul (Jesus died for your sins), they NEEDED to attach the idea to a culture that was more ancient (Judean/Jewish culture) to have it seen as more legitimate amongst the converts around the Mediterranean. So, this is what the early "Church Fathers" did and succeeded in converting most gentiles to the new religion by the year 400 CE. Thus, the original Jewish Jesus sect died out basically in those first couple centuries. The Pauline gentile variant spread. With the idea of Replacement Theology, Jews were considered to be stubbornly "wrong" in interpreting their own religion. They needed to be persecuted to be corrected. Then of course the whitewashing of Jesus' death so that they are deemed as "Christ-killers" etc. This made Judaism even more insular as it needed to protect itself from interference and persecution. The rest is history. That hatred permeated in various forms throughout history up until the 20th and 21st century. So in the end it is the very basis of Christianity (Replacement Theology) to "kill" the original copywriters and "correct" that culture's own ideas about its mythological history. — schopenhauer1

A. fuckin'. Men, schop! :clap: :clap: :clap: Hallelujah.

The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", — Relativist

They seem to have ignored that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law.

Tribalism clouds/ignores perceptions.

Regards
DL

On your insular point.

I saw a study of European cities, but this applies to most cities, and how they are laid out.

It showed that most cities have quarters and sections where various races, including Jews, congregate.
Italian quarters, French, Muslims etc.

We are all insular and tribal to a fault, if we consider the education levels of the general population.

Regards
DL

They all worship a version of Jesus — Artemis

Yes. The Jesus that hates all those they hate.

That is why they love their version.

Regards
DL

Wouldn't you love a person who would take up the infinitely horrible task of killing by torture no less a person than the son of god and that too so that you may be redeemed for your sins? — TheMadFool

The religious ignore that God chose Jesus to die even before the earth was created. That's scripture.

When they want some other scenario, they are too stupid to recognize that to change things would derail their god's master plan. That paradox is present in Adam's sin. Christians call it our fall, yet sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Seems god planned our fall yet Christians blame man for it.

Regards
DL

Hate is indeed a human trait. So is love, and we default to love as our first instinct for survival. The hate is passed up from the bigoted peers.

IOWs, the religious feed the hate to maintain their tribal differences.

A poor religious trait seen in the worst of religions and mostly absent in the religions that seek knowledge and wisdom instead of imaginary supernatural gods.

Regards
DL

actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it — christian2017

I agree.

Christians tend to ignore that a big part of that law is that we all take responsibility and punishment for our sins.

They ignore that justice to keep ridding their scapegoat Jesus and they want him to break many Jewish laws.

They are self serving and not Jesus serving. Christians who use Jesus as a scapegoat are quite immoral.

Regards
DL

When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible. — ssu

I agree but that is because the lying preachers do not show the truth of things. If the liars would speak the truth, things would be a lot better.

You will never hear a Christian explain why Yahweh chose a remedy for sin before he even invented the earth and the opportunity for us to sin, --- if his plan did not include sin.

Christians point to our free will but that ignores god own free will that made him insure that most of us ended in hell.

Regards
DL

The Jewish court which sentenced Jesus had no temporal powers. The Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, probably because they considered him as a potential rebel. Suggest you study the history of the Jewish rebellion against the Roman rule.

How does God ensure that most will end in hell?

They seem to have ignored that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How do you know Jesus actually said that? I presume it's because "Matthew" attributes those words to Jesus. However it's very possibly an apologetic invention by "Matthew" to convey his view that Mosaic law was to continue to be followed.

If you choose to believe everything in the Gospels is true, that's religious faith. You are free to believe whatever you like, but obviously YOUR faith isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't share it.

How does God ensure that most will end in hell? — matt

In the book of his myth, the bible, it is written that Yahweh decides by the hardening of hearts and minds who will believe and be saved and who will end in hell for non-belief.

I put this old O.P. below to show some references. Opine on it if you like.

====================

Are non-believers doomed by Divine Design?

Scriptures say that God decides if a person will be a believer or non-believer. Those scriptures are shown in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byHYeHN4ZUQ

Those quotes seems to really screw up the free will notion that Christians say God gives us.

The free will that God offers is kind of a joke anyway given the number of people whose free will to live is ignored in the billions of adults, children and babies that God is shown to torture and murder in scriptures.

If the bible and Yahweh are to be believed, and as a non-believer, I, of course, cannot believe it, thanks to God, by God’s design and will against me, then why did God deny me belief or faith?

Even more important to believers, might be to answer the question of; did God make you a believer in things that you can only hope exists and can never confirm?

Are you happy with God ignoring or negating your free will to think as you please?

I have assumed that God’s work of creating both believers and non-believers is working. If that is so, and you believers must think it so, just as I as a non-believer cannot think it is working, --- and Jesus said that those with faith could do all he did and more, --- then the is is not even one believer or person of faith that has ever existed.

Either the bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.


What is your choice of those two options?

Is the bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, --- which would make all Christians who say they have faith, --- liars.

I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.

What do you think is the truth?

Is it just for God to create people doomed to hell even if they wanted to believe?

Regards
DL

How do you know Jesus actually said that? — Relativist

All that the supernaturally based religions have to offer are lies and speculative nonsense about god.

I am not a literalist but write to engage them and I have to use their ball to play on their field.

but obviously YOUR faith isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't share it. — Relativist

Only it my interlocutor is unconcerned with his moral soul and wants to continue to idol worship a genocidal and infanticidal prick of a god.

Many follow the satanic gods and you are right that just knowing their gods are pricks will no have them leave the comfort of their immoral tribes.

Regards
DL

Relativist
How do you know Jesus actually said that?
— Relativist

All that the supernaturally based religions have to offer are lies and speculative nonsense about god.

I am not a literalist but write to engage them and I have to use their ball to play on their field — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You didn't answer my question. How do you know Jesus said that?

FYI, I do not believe there exists an "immortal soul".

:up: Amen.