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)?Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Jesus was a Jew.
Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
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
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
Narcissism of small differences. — 180 Proof
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.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
When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible.Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
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!”
When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible. — ssu
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
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
The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", — Relativist
They all worship a version of Jesus — Artemis
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
actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it — christian2017
When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible. — ssu
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.They seem to have ignored that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
How does God ensure that most will end in hell? — matt
How do you know Jesus actually said that? — Relativist
but obviously YOUR faith isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't share it. — Relativist
You didn't answer my question. How do you know Jesus said that?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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.