Bishop Williamson reminds Pope of ancient truths!

PatricaMcKay2

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross ? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature ? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life” ?

But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament ? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages ? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.

How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths ?.

Kyrie eleison.

The Quadratic Equation

Jesus and the early disiples were all Jews.

Without Jews, God's chosen people, we would know very little about God.

recedite

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide

That's logical enough; It would seem unlikely that any jews around at the time who conspired against Jesus would still be alive today.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God

Gods are immortal; they can't be killed.

Anyway it was a lawful execution carried out by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Roman Consul. So no "blame" attaches to anyone.
Suppose there was blame, and suppose it was possible to assign collective blame on an ethnic group, and then transmit that blame down through many generations of people who had no involvement in the original affair, then the Italians are the ones to blame, or perhaps anyone currently living in Rome and using a Latin name.

catchup

And your point is?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

randylonghorn

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths ?.

I am tempted to echo Pontius Pilate: "Truth? What is truth?"

The bible teaches that the death of Jesus on the cross was both part of God's pre-ordained plan and necessary for the salvation of humanity.

For that plan to come to fruition, there had to be agents who would carry it out.

Are we to believe that a merciful God would choose the Jews, Jesus' own people, as the fall guys ever more to be condemned and hounded because in effect they were the necessary agents of the divine plan?

That makes God sound like a bad movie director tbh, and is probably blasphemous.



I note in passing that the self-styled Bishop Williamson also thinks that the Holocaust didn't happen; that women shouldn't have careers or wear trousers; and that The Sound of Music undermines good parental discipline.

antiskeptic

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus and the early disiples were all Jews.

Without Jews, God's chosen people, we would very little about God.

What's that got to do with the then Jews killing Christ?

antiskeptic

randylonghorn wrote: »

Are we to believe that a merciful God would choose the Jews, Jesus' own people, as the fall guys ever more to be condemned and hounded because in effect they were the necessary agents of the divine plan?

God seems to have form in dealing (what some might view as) stringently with the Jewish nations disobedience. I gather the 40 years in the wilderness trip could have been accomplished in 11 days under normal circumstances.

One would have to wonder about the particular persecution suffered by this people.

PatricaMcKay2

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pretty rude of you to deny him his title of Bishop.

Bishop Williamson doubts that certain historical events said to have taken place did indeed take place, so what? What exactly does that have to do with the price of fish?

And as for being associated with anti-semitism, outside of media hysteria just how is he?

He is merely saying what all Christians have believed to be the case until the 20 th century.

PatricaMcKay2

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus and the early disiples were all Jews.

Without Jews, God's chosen people, we would very little about God.

So you do not distinguish between the Old Testament Church of God and the modern day Talmudic jews not to mention their liberal spawn?

randylonghorn

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather the 40 years in the wilderness trip could have been accomplished in 11 days under normal circumstances.

Perhaps they suffered from sunstroke and lost track of time?

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

He is merely saying what all Christians have believed to be the case until the 20 th century.

So you at least agree that he is at least a century behind the times?

PatricaMcKay2

randylonghorn wrote: »

So you at least agree that he is at least a century behind the times?

Im sure he would personally be insulted that you didnt say he was several centuries behind the times.

But following the world has nothing to do with being Christian.

PatricaMcKay2

Isnt the "ecumenism" of John Paul II and Pope Benedict in terms of modern Judaism a lot more scandalous than anything Bishop Williamson may have said?

Yes he does come out with some wild statements but he always backs them up with hard arguments, he tries to get people to think, something post-modern people are not fond of doing.

philologos

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Im sure he would personally be insulted that you didnt say he was several centuries behind the times.

But following the world has nothing to do with being Christian.

Being intentionally abraisive has nothing to do with being a Christian either.

As other posters have pointed out if Jesus wasn't arrested and put to death we would have had no death and ressurrection. This was God's plan, there is no need to blame people for it. In fact Jesus says in John's Gospel that his death would be sad for a time but then there would be joy.

Joy because Jesus died and rose again in our place.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.

Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross ? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature ? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life” ?

But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament ? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages ? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.

How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths ?.

Kyrie eleison.

Yes, it seems the pope is squirming to avoid both historical and Biblical truth. Unless he is being misquoted? Perhaps an up-to-date Catholic here will inform us?

********************************************************************
Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. 14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. 16 And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

randylonghorn

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

But following the world has nothing to do with being Christian.

In fairness, I wouldn't argue that point with you.

But the man is, as you say, several centuries behind mainstream *Christian* thinking, not just secular thinking.

And personally, I would always have found the mediaeval "Christian" attitude to the Jews singularly un-Christian.

Jesus preached forgiveness and love; his followers preached retribution, hate and indeed, during the Crusdades, annihilation.

Again: the bible tells us that the Jews were the necessary agents of a pre-ordained divine plan. Why should their descendants 2 millennia later still be condemned as a result?

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

Being intentionally abraisive has nothing to do with being a Christian either.

Who is being intentionally abrasive? Certainly not Bishop Williamson as far as I can see.

Far less anyway than the man who wrote this...

14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

philologos

I agree that they brought Jesus to trial essentially for blasphemy with a secondary charge of treason. The thing is, I personally think that what happened was a good thing for all Christians.

But yes, he's being intentionally abraisive in denying the Holocaust.

PatricaMcKay2

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, I wouldn't argue that point with you.

But the man is, as you say, several centuries behind mainstream *Christian* thinking, not just secular thinking.

And personally, I would always have found the mediaeval "Christian" attitude to the Jews singularly un-Christian.

Jesus preached forgiveness and love; his followers preached retribution, hate and indeed, during the Crusdades, annihilation.

Again: the bible tells us that the Jews were the necessary agents of a pre-ordained divine plan. Why should their descendants 2 millennia later still be condemned as a result?

Bishop Williamson is advocating prayer for the jews that God removes the blindness on their hearts so that they may percieve the Light of Christ, that is all, and surely that is hardly unChristian?

You could also make the point that original sin is unjust, after all we are all here suffering because of the sin of Adam are we not? It is membership and support of a false religion born from the very concrete rejection of God that is at question here rather than blood descent.

The Quadratic Equation

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's that got to do with the then Jews killing Christ?

Are you trying to claim all Jews wanted to kill Christ ?

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

But yes, he's being intentionally abraisive in denying the Holocaust.

Thats a different issue not addressed in this letter.

And he didnt go shouting about his belief on that issue, he just wasnt prepared to deny his beliefs when they were brought up, the whole media assasination of him was sickening. That said in such a cowardly world I admire his strong principles, however much of what he believes I disagree with.

philologos

It's the same man. The truly Christian thing to do would be to repent before God and apologise to those whom he wronged by denying one of the most twisted acts of mass genocide the world has ever seen, and if he so desires engage with the Jewish people positively like groups such as Jews for Jesus do.

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

It's the same man. The truly Christian thing to do would be to repent, and if he so desires engage with the Jewish people positively like groups such as Jews for Jesus do.

Jews for Jesus which supports the theft of Christian owned land, the destruction of Churches and the murder of Christians if its in the interests of "Israel"?

philologos

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Jews for Jesus which supports the theft of Christian owned land, the destruction of Churches and the murder of Christians if its in the interests of "Israel"?

???

randylonghorn

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Bishop Williamson is advocating prayer for the jews that God removes the blindness on their hearts so that they may percieve the Light of Christ, that is all, and surely that is hardly unChristian?

We must be reading different articles, Patricia, because I think he is saying a lot more than that.

In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse ...

He is, as I read it, arguing for the age-old position that the Jews should be held directly responsible for the death of Christ.

Such thinking, often linked to political convenience, led to the Crusades, to pogroms, to centuries of anti-semitism throughout European history, and eventually to the Holocaust which Williamson denies ever took place.

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

???

Jews for Jesus is hardcore zionist.

Zionism has been responsible for decimating the ancient Christian communities in Palestine most of whom went back to the very first days of the Church.

Benny_Cake

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Bishop Williamson is advocating prayer for the jews that God removes the blindness on their hearts so that they may percieve the Light of Christ, that is all, and surely that is hardly unChristian?

You could also make the point that original sin is unjust, after all we are all here suffering because of the sin of Adam are we not? It is membership and support of a false religion born from the very concrete rejection of God that is at question here rather than blood descent.

In short,good old fashioned religious anti-semitism instead of the newer racial anti-semitism.

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

It's the same man. The truly Christian thing to do would be to repent before God and apologise to those whom he wronged by denying one of the most twisted acts of mass genocide the world has ever seen, and if he so desires engage with the Jewish people positively like groups such as Jews for Jesus do.

I'd agree with the point of your post,but most Jewish organisations would consider Jews for Jesus to be wolves in sheep's clothing!

philologos

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Jews for Jesus is hardcore zionist.

Zionism has been responsible for decimating the ancient Christian communities in Palestine most of whom went back to the very first days of the Church.

I need you to back up based on public statements by Jews for Jesus that they explicitly support:

• Theft of Christian owned land
• Destruction of churches
• Murder of Christians

Rather than what is in their mission statement:

We exist to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide.

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

I need you to back up based on public statements by Jews for Jesus that they explicitly support:

• Theft of Christian owned land
• Destruction of churches
• Murder of Christians

Rather than what is in their mission statement:
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

They support the state of Israel which is based on all of the above.

philologos

Supporting the right of Israel to exist doesn't mean that you support the murder of Christians.

I haven't actually read anything on the Jews for Jesus website that would back that up anyway. The reason for their work is to convince their fellow people that Jesus is the Messiah. I think that's a worthwhile activity.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd agree with the point of your post,but most Jewish organisations would consider Jews for Jesus to be wolves in sheep's clothing!

I'm sure they do, in that many Jewish people would be apprehensive about Jewish people accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Others want to explore the idea. If we believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to get behind Jewish Christians who aim to tell their own people about Him.

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

Supporting the right of Israel to exist doesn't mean that you support the murder of Christians.

Yes it does, highly disingenious to pretend that it doesnt. Anyway the murder of Muslims or atheists even is not something a Christian should be enthusiastic about.

PatricaMcKay2

http://jewsforjesus.org/judaica/yomhaazmaut

Benny_Cake

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Supporting the right of Israel to exist doesn't mean that you support the murder of Christians.

Yes it does, highly disingenious to pretend that it doesnt. Anyway the murder of Muslims or atheists even is not something a Christian should be enthusiastic about.

How does supporting the right of Israel to exist automatically mean supporting the murder of Christians?

PatricaMcKay2

Benny_Cake wrote: »

How does supporting the right of Israel to exist automatically mean supporting the murder of Christians?

Because the state of Israel was founded on the murder of Christians and the theft of Christian land. It maintains itself through the murder of the rightful owners of the land many of whom are Christian.

philologos

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Yes it does, highly disingenious to pretend that it doesnt. Anyway the murder of Muslims or atheists even is not something a Christian should be enthusiastic about.

There's nothing disingenuous about that at all. One can support Israel's right to existence while disagreeing with many of the policies of the Israeli government or the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

I'm sure they do, in that many Jewish people would be apprehensive about Jewish people accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Others want to explore the idea. If we believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to get behind Jewish Christians who aim to tell their own people about Him.

Nothing wrong with that in principle,but many would argue that in accepting Jesus they have left Judaism and become Christians - so it seems quite disingenuous that they don't describe themselves as Christians.Given the history of the 2 faiths it is important to show sensitivity.This all gets into the area of "Who is a Jew" though which is a long and thorny question even for Jews!

randylonghorn

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Yes it does, highly disingenious to pretend that it doesnt.

No, not really. Many Irish people still support in principle the idea of a 32 county state, yet would not advocate the spilling of one drop of blood to achieve that goal.

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Anyway the murder of Muslims or atheists even is not something a Christian should be enthusiastic about.

"or athiests even" ??

Wow! That's quite revealing, Patricia.

Anyway, aren't we straying from the point of Williamson's article here into a discussion of the political situation in the MIddle East?

philologos

Benny Cake: It depends on how you view Christianity. Ultimately Christianity is hinged on Judaism. It is about the fulfilment of Judaism, in that Jesus the Messiah has arrived. Many people would view that Christianity is no longer Judaism. I would view that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism.

As Christians we believe that everyone needs to believe and trust in Jesus in order to be saved. This means that we have a responsibility to tell other people about Him. I agree that it is important to show sensitivity, that the Christian Gospel should be only shared with grace and love, but on the other hand, I believe that Christians should tell people about Him.

PatricaMcKay2

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing disingenuous about that at all. One can support Israel's right to existence while disagreeing with many of the policies of the Israeli government or the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.

The Israeli state is based on recent land theft and recent murder.

Festus

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The Israeli state is based on recent land theft and recent murder.

Just curious... are you an Islamist sympathiser as well as a supporter of Holocaust denialists?

Festus

randylonghorn wrote: »

Such thinking, often linked to political convenience, led to the Crusades, to pogroms, to centuries of anti-semitism throughout European history, and eventually to the Holocaust which Williamson denies ever took place.

Not sure which history books you are reading but the Crusades had nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with protecting Christians and the Holy Land from maurading Islamic extremists.

No intention to derail, just pointing out a historical fact.

The Quadratic Equation

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The Israeli state is based on recent land theft and recent murder.

Lets face it, one side can be as bad as the other, and if the arabs had the upper hand, they would be doing exactly the same thing to the Israelis. I would not be so keen to support one side over the other.

hinault

Bishop Williamson is correct to say that the Jews of that timewere complicit in the murder of Jesus Christ.
The gospel tells how the Sanhedrin were central to the trial as told in the Passion.

Does this mean that modern day Jews are guilty? I don't think they are.

As for the creation of the state of Israel. It is built on the concept of theft and
lies. It is an abomination.

PatricaMcKay2

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Lets face it, one side can be as bad as the other, and if the arabs had the upper hand, they would be doing exactly the same thing to the Israelis. I would not be so keen to support one side over the other.

Christians, Muslims and Jews lived relatively happily together in the Holy Land for centuries before the arrival of zionism. The state of "Israel" has to go, infact many Christians based on the teachings of the early Fathers consider it there to place the AntiChrist in power, who is it after all that will rebuild the "Temple"?

PatricaMcKay2

Festus wrote: »

Just curious... are you an Islamist sympathiser as well as a supporter of Holocaust denialists?

What exactly do you mean by an Islamist sympathizer?

I believe in the seperation of the state from formal religion and know that Islam is a false religion. That wouldnt make me a Islamist sympathizer by normal standards. I have respect though for Muslim persons and what is good within their culture.

I dont support Bishop Williamson, Im a Protestant, I do admire his intelligence and courage though.

randylonghorn

Festus wrote: »

Not sure which history books you are reading but the Crusades had nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with protecting Christians and the Holy Land from maurading Islamic extremists.

No intention to derail, just pointing out a historical fact.

I was more referring to the prevailing idea underlying the Crusades that the Holy Land must be, and should be as a matter of right, in Christian hands ... an idea which went back much further than the Crusades themselves, in fact, to the Emperor Hadrian banning Jews from Jerusalem in the second century.

But you're right, of course, Jerusalem was under the control of the Muslim Caliphates at the time of the Crusades, and the Fatimid Caliphs of that period took a much harder line than say their Rashidun predecessors in the early days of Muslim occupation.

Sometimes trying to be relatively brief leads to being unclear, unfortunately.

PatricaMcKay2

Festus wrote: »

Not sure which history books you are reading but the Crusades had nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with protecting Christians and the Holy Land from maurading Islamic extremists.

No intention to derail, just pointing out a historical fact.

Oh really? Well actually one of the reason for the crusades was to get maurading knights off western Europe's back, also they were pretty focused on murdering and bullying eastern Christians. Remember Ireland had her Church forced under the Papacy and her land given to the Norman crown in England by such a similar crusade, same happened to England basically with a quarter of the population of the north of England being slaughtered, and there were similar "holy wars" against Russia.

hinault

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Christians, Muslims and Jews lived relatively happily together in the Holy Land for centuries before the arrival of zionism.

correct.

randylonghorn

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Oh really? Well actually one of the reason for the crusades was to get maurading knights off western Europe's back ....

While I think you are correct to say that there were many political reasons for the Crusades, Patricia, as there are behind the scenes reasons for most wars, I think the point Festus was querying was how I linked the Crusades to anti-semiticism given that Jerusalem at the time was under Muslim control.

My point, which I admittedly should have explained better, was that the whole idea that Jerusalem and the Holy Land should be exclusively in Christian hands which underlay the Crusades, at least as a rallying cry, went back much further than the Crusades themselves. I mentioned above Hadrian's edict officially banning the Jews from Jerusalem in the second century; interestingly, as far as I remember, it was only with the control of Jerusalem under the early Caliphates some 500 years later that they were officially re-admitted.

PatricaMcKay2

randylonghorn wrote: »

While I think you are correct to say that there were many political reasons for the Crusades, Patricia, as there are behind the scenes reasons for most wars, I think the point Festus was querying was how I linked the Crusades to anti-semiticism given that Jerusalem at the time was under Muslim control.

My point, which I admittedly should have explained better, was that the whole idea that Jerusalem and the Holy Land should be exclusively in Christian hands which underlay the Crusades, at least as a rallying cry, went back much further than the Crusades themselves. I mentioned above Hadrian's edict officially banning the Jews from Jerusalem in the second century; interestingly, as far as I remember, it was only with the control of Jerusalem under the early Caliphates some 500 years later that they were officially re-admitted.

Hadrian was a Pagan not a Christian. And actually Julian the Apostate invited Jews back to Jerusalem.

Yes you are right that along with the first crusade came the wholesale slaughter of a lot of jewish communities in Europe, which was evil, but had a lot to do with the fact that the ruling class of western Europe was not (and probably never was) fully Christianized, especially the Knights. That doesnt take from the spiritual reality of modern Judaism though or what Bishop Williamson is trying to say.