Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's certainly what the Gospels say... and it is certainly why the Gospels are the root cause of Christianity's bloody and horrific hatred of the Jews.
Unfortunately, it has certain historical problems, not the least of which is that nothing he did was a threat to the essentially non-existent power of the Jews. Judea was an occupied land under actual Roman Rule and the governorship of an ethnically foreign (non-Jewish) puppet king. The Jewish religious leaders had no power to threaten.
More importantly, the punishment was uniquely Roman and (assuming it actually happened in the first place) reserved for crimes against the state of Rome, not Judea. The historical Jesus was therefore almost certainly just one of the swarm of anti-Roman agitators that simmered in Judea, culminating in the First Roman-Jewish War just a few years later.
Still under the Roman yoke, the earliest Christians had a very good reason to write Gospels that bent over backwards to excuse their overlord Romans and instead used the Jews as a scapegoat. So much of the Gospels exhibits shameless brown-nosing of the Romans... from the "render unto Caesar" to the guard that converts at the crucifixion, to the silly story of Pontius Pilates washing his hands of the whole mess. Christian antisemitism is simply the reverse face of the "be-very-carefull-and-don't-****-off-the-Romans" coin.
Christianity was born as and has persisted as "a religion of slaves." And its native slavishness to its Roman masters has been the death sentence for millions of Jews ever since.
Actually, we really have no idea who the writers of the Gospels were at all. But that would still be a red herring.
The Gospels are highly evolved theological documents that did not reach their current form for generations after the death of Jesus. They are also the product of Pauline theology, and the early conflict between Paul (The Apostle to the Gentiles) and the "Jewish" faction led by Peter and James is rather well documented. The Jewish faction lost and Pauline theology became orthodoxy.
Do not forget also that the early Christians were dumbfounded over the failure of most of their fellow Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, setting up the same sort of bitter and fratricidal break that Islam would later have with its mother religion of Christianity once the Christians and Jews refused to acknowledge the prophet-hood of Muhammad. Blood is always bitterest when the offender is family.
It does not matter that most (not all) of the earliest Christians were originally Jews. It matters that as Christianity evolved from an aesthetic Hebrew sect into a religion of the Gentiles, the Jews were made scapegoats and the Romans were soft pedaled.
The only certain thing I have learned from this thread is it is better to be a Rothschild than a Smith. Except when there is a world full of anti semites hunting you.
I don't personally know any Rothschilds. So I suppose I am as neutral about them as I would be about meeting anyone on the street that is posting here on C-D.
They've got a lot of money, and that equates to power and influence, but so do many other folks out there. Wealth alone does not make one "evil", nor "good" for that matter. It is a matter of what is done with the wealth.
Sometimes automatically assuming that someone is good or bad, because of whatever circumstance(wealth, job status, race, political affiliation, or religion) can become a self fulfilling prophecy. That is kind of the basis for "racism", or any other "ism" isn't it?
Actually, we really have no idea who the writers of the Gospels were at all. But that would still be a red herring.
The Gospels are highly evolved theological documents that did not reach their current form for generations after the death of Jesus. They are also the product of Pauline theology, and the early conflict between Paul (The Apostle to the Gentiles) and the "Jewish" faction led by Peter and James is rather well documented. The Jewish faction lost and Pauline theology became orthodoxy.
Do not forget also that the early Christians were dumbfounded over the failure of most of their fellow Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, setting up the same sort of bitter and fratricidal break that Islam would later have with its mother religion of Christianity once the Christians and Jews refused to acknowledge the prophet-hood of Muhammad. Blood is always bitterest when the offender is family.
It does not matter that most (not all) of the earliest Christians were originally Jews. It matters that as Christianity evolved from an aesthetic Hebrew sect into a religion of the Gentiles, the Jews were made scapegoats and the Romans were soft pedaled.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Both Paul and Peter were Jews who preached Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and Lord. There is no difference in their core beliefs. If you prefer Peter's view, here is some of it:
27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.†29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.â€
33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.â€
40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Both Paul and Peter were Jews who preached Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and Lord. There is no difference in their core beliefs.
1) Since neither of them wrote any of the Gospels, as far as this thread goes that's pretty much just a red herring, and also has nothing to do with the native antisemitism int he Gospels.
2) The conflict between the Jewish faction of the early church led by Peter and James and the gentile faction led by Paul is documented in Galatians 2:11-14 as well as in the dueling theology between the letters of Paul and James. It doesn't matter that Paul was a Jew, since he had embraced his status as a citizen of Rome and Apostle to the Gentiles.
3) It was Paul that drove the break with Mosaic Law and hence with Judaism, not Peter or James. This was primarily an effort to make the new religion more palatable to the Gentiles who would on one hand be understandably adverse to circumcision, and second already familiar with the Greek Mystery Cults upon which so much of the Christian salvation scheme was ultimately based.
4) The New Testament Gospels remain the foundational documents of Christian and European antisemitism.
Was this thread about the Rothschild family or Christian/Jewish theology? It is getting hard to tell.
Ultimately both. The attack on the Rothschild family is purely and entirely a demonstration of antisemitism. And you can't seriously talk about antisemitism without recognizing its source in Christian theology.
Ultimately both. The attack on the Rothschild family is purely and entirely a demonstration of antisemitism. And you can't seriously talk about antisemitism without recognizing its source in Christian theology.
Entirely antisemitism?
I would think there are legitimate bones to pick with one of the wealthiest families on Earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
