Easter is antisemitic?

Markus Antonius

I am aware that we are currently in Passover as well as the Easter period but I could not pick my jaw off the floor today with the programs RTE were showing.

First thing I saw was "Countdown to Calvary", which seemed very apt for Easter. But no, it was an account completely skewed from a jewish perspective. Apparently, according to the Israeli historical "experts", the crucifixion of Christ was completely on the head of Pontius Pilate and the Romans and the "misinformation" that it was the Jews who called for his death marked the beginning of antisemitism and caused horrendous events such as the holocaust!!

I was dumbfounded at the ignorance.

Then RTE proceeded to show "One Day in Auschwitz" - a program that seems to think only Jewish people were killed in the holocaust followed by "The Pianist" about the plight of a Jew during the holocaust.

What are RTE thinking? It's the equivalent of Google's ongoing protest against Easter.

antiskeptic

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I am aware that we are currently in Passover as well as the Easter period but I could not pick my jaw off the floor today with the programs RTE were showing.

First thing I saw was "Countdown to Calvary", which seemed very apt for Easter. But no, it was an account completely skewed from a jewish perspective. Apparently, according to the Israeli historical "experts", the crucifixion of Christ was completely on the head of Pontius Pilate and the Romans and the "misinformation" that it was the Jews who called for his death marked the beginning of antisemitism and caused horrendous events such as the holocaust!!

I was dumbfounded at the ignorance.

Then RTE proceeded to show "One Day in Auschwitz" - a program that seems to think only Jewish people were killed in the holocaust followed by "The Pianist" about the plight of a Jew during the holocaust.

What are RTE thinking? It's the equivalent of Google's ongoing protest against Easter.

Seems strange alright. On the one hand the account is taken as true. But the account implicates the Jewish leaders and why they wanted Jesus' head.

Presumably they cherry pick the bits of the account they figure true and discount the rest as makey uppy of something?

Markus Antonius

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seems strange alright. On the one hand the account is taken as true. But the account implicates the Jewish leaders and why they wanted Jesus' head.

Presumably they cherry pick the bits of the account they figure true and discount the rest as makey uppy of something?

I don't know. I can't help but feel there's a rewriting of history going on from certain groups, all protected from criticism by censorship and accusations of being antisemitic. I feel it also stems from the same source as the strong anti-christian/catholic sentiments arising recently too.

looksee

Mod: Markus Antonius, there may be a discussion here, but if it is limited to your 'feelings' then it creeps close to conspiracy theories. Could you provide some links and evidence to support your argument please.

TheValeyard

Always felt Pilate took too much of the blame here. Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead as he was a threat to the social order and their comfortable lifestyles and power base. Plates hands were tied. Execute Jesus or risk another insurrection and could be him facing an execution order from the Emperor.

johnnyskeleton

Markus Antonius wrote: »

First thing I saw was "Countdown to Calvary", which seemed very apt for Easter. But no, it was an account completely skewed from a jewish perspective. Apparently, according to the Israeli historical "experts", the crucifixion of Christ was completely on the head of Pontius Pilate and the Romans and the "misinformation" that it was the Jews who called for his death marked the beginning of antisemitism and caused horrendous events such as the holocaust!!

Well there are no contemporary historical documents to show what happened, but there is historical evidence that only a roman governor could impose crucifixion, so if Jesus was crucified, and there is no reason to think he wasnt, then it was by Pilates order.

Then RTE proceeded to show "One Day in Auschwitz" - a program that seems to think only Jewish people were killed in the holocaust followed by "The Pianist" about the plight of a Jew during the holocaust

A plurality of holocaust victims were Jewish, and Auschwitz 2 Birkenow was almost exclusively a Jewish extermination camp. So in that context focussing on Jewish victims is fair.

But your comment about the Pianist suggests to me that you dont find anything actually objectionable in all this and just dont want to watch anything that portrays Jewish people as victims. It also makes me question whether your interpretation of what was said in the first documentary is entirely accurate.

Markus Antonius

looksee wrote: »

Mod: Markus Antonius, there may be a discussion here, but if it is limited to your 'feelings' then it creeps close to conspiracy theories. Could you provide some links and evidence to support your argument please.

Of course, here's a clip from the documentary:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But your comment about the Pianist suggests to me that you dont find anything actually objectionable in all this and just dont want to watch anything that portrays Jewish people as victims. It also makes me question whether your interpretation of what was said in the first documentary is entirely accurate.

You are wrong and I am absolutely not going to engage with you on this topic because I know where you are trying to take it.

smacl

Markus Antonius wrote: »

You are wrong and I am absolutely not going to engage with you on this topic because I know where you are trying to take it.

Mod warning: Telling someone they are wrong and then refusing to engage based on speculation of ulterior motives is not acceptable. Either engage or do not, but do so civilly. The purpose of this forum is to engage in honest and civil debate, not to stymie it. Any responses via PM or to the feedback thread only please.

antiskeptic

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I don't know. I can't help but feel there's a rewriting of history going on from certain groups, all protected from criticism by censorship and accusations of being antisemitic. I feel it also stems from the same source as the strong anti-christian/catholic sentiments arising recently too.

I was at an evangelical event a number of years ago: a reach out to the Jewish community driven by the belief that the Jews were still God's people and that he had a special plan for them still. The meet took the form of a play in which any number of biblical stories played out. When they got to the New Testament, Jesus was more or less written out of the account! By an evangelical community so focused on the Jews as warranting molly cuddling that they were prepared to write out the Messiah. Bizarre!

Zionism is a powerful lobby. I can see why they might want to control the dialogue, given the amount of persecution undergone. This redacting of scripture is probably along those lines. But still bizarre - to use scripture to absolve the Jews responsibility in Jesus' death.

Markus Antonius

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was at an evangelical event a number of years ago: a reach out to the Jewish community driven by the belief that the Jews were still God's people and that he had a special plan for them still. The meet took the form of a play in which any number of biblical stories played out. When they got to the New Testament, Jesus was more or less written out of the account! By an evangelical community so focused on the Jews as warranting molly cuddling that they were prepared to write out the Messiah. Bizarre!

Zionism is a powerful lobby. I can see why they might want to control the dialogue, given the amount of persecution undergone. This redacting of scripture is probably along those lines. But still bizarre - to use scripture to absolve the Jews responsibility in Jesus' death.

Completely bizarre! Earlier on in the documentary linked above the same historian suggested that Christians should be thankful Judas betrayed Jesus as Christianity wouldn't have gathered momentum had he not been killed! Despite this having an element of truth to it, that this kind of incendiary language is put out on the airwaves with zero challenge just shows how one-sided the debates are. And for him then to implicate Christianity in the holocaust of Jews was absolutely outrageous.

All shown on Easter week too! :rolleyes:

looksee

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Completely bizarre! Earlier on in the documentary linked above the same historian suggested that Christians should be thankful Judas betrayed Jesus as Christianity wouldn't have gathered momentum had he not been killed! Despite this having an element of truth to it, that this kind of incendiary language is put out on the airwaves with zero challenge just shows how one-sided the debates are. And for him then to implicate Christianity in the holocaust of Jews was absolutely outrageous.

All shown on Easter week too! :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that Jews were not persecuted by Christians for hundreds of years, culminating in the holocaust? What do you think was the reason for the holocaust?

bfa1509

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Jews were not persecuted by Christians for hundreds of years, culminating in the holocaust? What do you think was the reason for the holocaust?

There were millions of Christians killed in the holocaust is this not proof enough?

Markus Antonius

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Jews were not persecuted by Christians for hundreds of years, culminating in the holocaust? What do you think was the reason for the holocaust?

A political movement that perceived Jews as facilitators and financial beneficiaries of the downfall of Germany in the first world war coupled with a eugenics program that did not see Jews as part of an Aryan race is what culminated in the holocaust.

Do you think Christianity played a key role in the extermination of Jews? Do you believe Easter is antisemitic?

looksee

I would say that there is no doubt that the way Jews were regarded in Europe for centuries resulted in the desire of the Nazi regime to exterminate them - along with vast numbers of other people also regarded as undesirable in some way, but as far as I know Jews were the biggest single group and are the people under discussion in this thread.

Jews were persecuted as a direct result of the Christian belief that they (Jews) were responsible for the death of Christ, but His death was inevitable, part of God's plan and it is very likely that Christianity would never have 'caught on' - indeed it would have been pointless - without His death so there is a something of a circular argument. If Christ's death was necessary to save humanity, why would Christians be so impassioned about Jews being responsible for that death? If Jesus had lived out a normal lifespan, preaching and teaching, he would just have been another charismatic teacher, but unlikely the foundation of a whole religion.

I have not watched the documentary so I don't know what they proposed, but the bottom line was that Pilate actually sentenced Jesus to death, but the Jews were complicit - they were offered the choice. I don't think there is the least doubt that Christians concluded that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and so they were persecuted thereafter.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

I would say that there is no doubt that the way Jews were regarded in Europe for centuries resulted in the desire of the Nazi regime to exterminate them - along with vast numbers of other people also regarded as undesirable in some way, but as far as I know Jews were the biggest single group and are the people under discussion in this thread.

Jews were persecuted as a direct result of the Christian belief that they (Jews) were responsible for the death of Christ

Sounds like a bit of a reach to me. That the Jewish leaders incited the Roman authorities to execute Jesus is the record, but Christianity doesn't really see the Jews as other than anybody else in their position. The killers were everyman. Which was the point: everyman hates God.

, but His death was inevitable, part of God's plan and it is very likely that Christianity would never have 'caught on' - indeed it would have been pointless - without His death so there is a something of a circular argument. If Christ's death was necessary to save humanity, why would Christians be so impassioned about Jews being responsible for that death?

Indeed. I don't know where the 'impassioned' comes from. Recognition that such and such is the case doesn't mean you are impassioned about it.

I have not watched the documentary so I don't know what they proposed, but the bottom line was that Pilate actually sentenced Jesus to death, but the Jews were complicit - they were offered the choice. I don't think there is the least doubt that Christians concluded that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and so they were persecuted thereafter.

The more likely view is that the Jews are a picture of the individual decision to reject God. God departs and you are left on your own. A picture of Hell if anything. Not that God ensured they would suffer but really, in very short order after the crucifixion, Israel ceased to exist and the Jews were scattered. I imagine the hatred had to do with the fact that they tend to do well whereever they go.

Quantum Erasure

Markus Antonius wrote: »

.

What are RTE thinking? It's the equivalent of Google's ongoing protest against Easter.

What's this about? I tried to google Google, but....

looksee

I don't think I am the one that is reaching.

smacl

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

What's this about? I tried to google Google, but....

Careful now, we don't want to break the internet... :P

Joking aside, I'd also be keen to know what "Google's ongoing protest against Easter" refers to, as I see no mention of it in any mainstream media.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Careful now, we don't want to break the internet... :P

Joking aside, I'd also be keen to know what "Google's ongoing protest against Easter" refers to, as I see no mention of it in any mainstream media.

Probably as sick of veg oil based Easter eggs as I am.

looksee

smacl wrote: »

Careful now, we don't want to break the internet... :P

Joking aside, I'd also be keen to know what "Google's ongoing protest against Easter" refers to, as I see no mention of it in any mainstream media.

If you Google 'google doodles' you will find they only do 'Spring' rather than Easter. The nearest they get to any (ie everyone else's too) religious holidays is 'Happy Holidays'.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

If you Google 'google doodles' you will find they only do 'Spring' rather than Easter. The nearest they get to any (ie everyone else's too) religious holidays is 'Happy Holidays'.

Thanks for that. Not actively celebrating religious festivals in no way constitutes protesting them in my opinion. Seems like a stretch at best.

looksee

Rather than primarily blaming Christianity for the holocaust (which is nonsense) we should look instead at post Darwin eugenic and racial theory, as well as the rise of nationalism, which had its ultimate poisonous expression in Nazism. It was not Christianity that taught that certain cohorts of humanity were racially inferior and "sub human" and thus, could be culled like animals. Rather it was Nazism, an ideology fundamentally opposed, and hostile to, Christianity. It was Nazism and racial theory, not Christianity, that underpinned the holocaust.

A group being regarded with suspicion, or being discriminated against, while terrible, is a far distance removed from being regarded as inferior, sub-human and deserving of mass murder.

We should be careful that we do not attempt (unwittingly or otherwise) to absolve Nazism of its crimes by suggesting or implying that the holocaust was somehow an inevitability because of historical discrimination. To do this would be shameful - a disgrace.

looksee wrote: »

Jews were persecuted as a direct result of the Christian belief that they (Jews) were responsible for the death of Christ, but His death was inevitable, part of God's plan and it is very likely that Christianity would never have 'caught on' - indeed it would have been pointless - without His death so there is a something of a circular argument. If Christ's death was necessary to save humanity, why would Christians be so impassioned about Jews being responsible for that death? If Jesus had lived out a normal lifespan, preaching and teaching, he would just have been another charismatic teacher, but unlikely the foundation of a whole religion.

You believe the fall of man was inevitable? (well, as you have said you are an atheist obviously you do not believe any of this, but for the purposes of conversation should I pretend you do?)

To directly address the OP, in recent days RTE have ceased broadcasting on DAB meaning that I can now no longer listen or watch any RTE content. I'm not missing anything, I suggest you follow suit.

Television is a dead or dying medium. Ask anyone under twenty what programs are on the RTE schedule and at what times and they will not be able to tell you (except possibly for the news). Not too long ago people would know chunks of the schedule off by heart. RTE is not important anymore, and have little if any influence outside of their news productions. The internet means we can watch what we want, when we want. Don't torment yourself with RTE.

smacl

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

(well, as you have said you are an atheist obviously you do not believe any of this, but for the purposes of conversation should I pretend you do?)

Mod warning: Less of the condescension please. Given this thread was not tagged as [Christians only] it is open to all posters. In this context it is entirely reasonable for a non-Christian to discuss well understood and documented Christian beliefs without sharing this beliefs once they do so in a civil manner.
Any response via PM or to the feedback thread only

Markus Antonius

looksee wrote: »

Jews were persecuted as a direct result of the Christian belief that they (Jews) were responsible for the death of Christ,

I don't think there is the least doubt that Christians concluded that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and so they were persecuted thereafter.

You can only speculate this. There is no clear evidence that this is the case.

And to say that this sentiment is what culminated in the holocaust? Are you really going to stand over that, despite everything we know about this very recent event?

looksee wrote: »

If Christ's death was necessary to save humanity, why would Christians be so impassioned about Jews being responsible for that death? If Jesus had lived out a normal lifespan, preaching and teaching, he would just have been another charismatic teacher, but unlikely the foundation of a whole religion.

What modern or historical events would indicate to you that Christians are 'impassioned' by the Jews responsibility for Christ's death? This is exactly the kind of rewriting of history I eluded to earlier in the thread.

Thinkingaboutit

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all Gospels likely heard in full during Holy Week or read (if stream was not possible) all indicate that Pontius Pilate wishes to release Jesus after scourging him. His death on the cross is the responsibility of the Temple authorities, who could not execute on their own authority. The Antonia Fort alongside the Temple was there to remind the Scribes and Pharisees that Rome was not to be trifled with. The Gospel of St John says that the crowd warned that Pilate would not be a friend of Caesar if Jesus was release. This recalls a form of redress where provincials could complain about a repressive governor. Pilate as a procurator angering local notables would've been a vulnerable man. Pilate had already been noted for his gauche handling of disturbances. The Gospel of St Matthew records how the mob were will to have His blood on them: 'And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.'

The matter is plain enough. The Temple authorities and, to a lesser extent, the crowd they whipped up, have the most responsibility. If Pilate refused, he would have had a rebellion. Remember there was large Jewish populations in a crescent in the whole Roman East. Some of the biggest rebellions were outside the Holy Land, but at this point, even with the cohorts in the Antonia Fort, Pilate would've been exposed. The Temple guards were hardly likely to help him, nor were the various local rulers, like the Herodian Tetrarchs like Herod Antipas and Philip. The Copt of at least Ethiopia hold Pilate to be a saint, but the Gospels suggest at least he was realistic, if lacking in courage.

karlitob

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I am aware that we are currently in Passover as well as the Easter period but I could not pick my jaw off the floor today with the programs RTE were showing.

First thing I saw was "Countdown to Calvary", which seemed very apt for Easter. But no, it was an account completely skewed from a jewish perspective. Apparently, according to the Israeli historical "experts", the crucifixion of Christ was completely on the head of Pontius Pilate and the Romans and the "misinformation" that it was the Jews who called for his death marked the beginning of antisemitism and caused horrendous events such as the holocaust!!

I was dumbfounded at the ignorance.

Then RTE proceeded to show "One Day in Auschwitz" - a program that seems to think only Jewish people were killed in the holocaust followed by "The Pianist" about the plight of a Jew during the holocaust.

What are RTE thinking? It's the equivalent of Google's ongoing protest against Easter.

Speaking as someone who knows nothing about all of this - I did read something somewhere that goes like this.

Pontius pilate was a fairly aggressive pain in the hoop. No way would he have ‘washed his hands’ of the incident.

Lots of people descended on the city for Passover and by all accounts things were tense. A tinder box waiting to be lit.

Your man, Hay-sus arrives on a donkey effectively quoting heresy. I’m the son of the big man upstairs etc etc. Hay-sus started quite a revolution and frightened a lot of people with his talk of the messiah. (Yes, yes I am the messiah - now **** off).

But hay-sus was a Jew, not a Christian. And there was loads of lads saying they were the son of god. And that I can turn wine into water. And really I’m a shamrock. That was not unusual. It offended the Jews but not unusual.

So pontius topped him before he started something that would wreck the place.

It was only after when the Romans adopted the Christian religion did they change the story to suit themselves. The Jews weren’t gonna change their religion, their beliefs - because of hay-sus.

His followers - the Christians built up a sizeable mass of believers. The Roman emperors noted, adopted it (Constantine I think - in a dream of all things) and it became the religion of the empire - not different to the one that preceded it. Now you can hardly start a state religion by stating that one of its highest state officers (pontius) killt the messiah!! So you say - ah twasnt me, ‘‘twas the Jews. And while you’re at Nicea we can figure out all the other stuff.


Anyway, that’s what I read. It was on the rte website, I think.

I find it better to think about all this religion as the hocus pocus it actually is and think about what would normal humans do in the context of the time.

Actually thinking there’s a god might make you think that one of the religions is right and the other is wrong. And sur that’s mad Ted.

looksee

Mod: Karlitob, while you are welcome to give the version of events as you understand it, please do so in a respectful manner, use the proper, appropriate names and omit the expletives. You also may not describe other people's beliefs as hocus pocus.

Before posting on this forum again please read the Charter.

Do not respond to this warning on thread, pm if you wish to query or discuss.

karlitob

looksee wrote: »

Mod: Karlitob, while you are welcome to give the version of events as you understand it, please do so in a respectful manner, use the proper, appropriate names and omit the expletives. You also may not describe other people's beliefs as hocus pocus.

Before posting on this forum again please read the Charter.

Do not respond to this warning on thread, pm if you wish to query or discuss.

That was a respectful manner. Our views differ.

I don’t accept being told to use ‘proper’ names for the shamrock lad.

The expletive was removed with asterisks as you well know but I suppose it asks the esoteric question - if a bear reads asterisks in a wood, is it still a expletive. You filled in the expletive - not me.

And besides - it is a fairly famous and funny movie. Clearly not funny enough.

And it is hocus pocus - obviously. Peoples ‘firmly held beliefs’ clearly outweigh my freedom of opinion. But not heavy enough to take a little ridicule.

Hotblack Desiato

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

To directly address the OP, in recent days RTE have ceased broadcasting on DAB meaning that I can now no longer listen or watch any RTE content. I'm not missing anything, I suggest you follow suit.

That's rather strange, as FM has much better coverage than DAB did, all DAB radios have FM, and there's still LW 252 as well.

There is Radio Maria on Saorview

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's rather strange, as FM has much better coverage than DAB did, all DAB radios have FM, and there's still LW 252 as well.

There is Radio Maria on Saorview

I don't have Saorview. Where I am, my radio at least, received DAB fine but can't get RTE Radio 1 or 2fm clear at all on FM. I suppose if I really wanted I could get it on the laptop or phone, but I'm not missing much.

brightspark

Considering it is the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is unlikely that the early Romans (starting with Constantine the Great) would want themselves to have been seen as the villains and the Gospels were likely spun to deflect some of the blame to the Jews. (if someone has a copy of the Gospels predating Constantine that wold throw my theory out)

That isn't to say that the Jewish hierarchy at the time wouldn't have wanted what they perhaps saw as a "cult" wiped out, but the Romans ultimately were the ones in charge and would have just as much incentive in squashing any potential rebellion.

History is written (or at least spun a little) by the victors after all.

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

Considering it is the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is unlikely that the early Romans (starting with Constantine the Great) would want themselves to have been seen as the villains and the Gospels were likely spun to deflect some of the blame to the Jews. (if someone has a copy of the Gospels predating Constantine that wold throw my theory out)

That isn't to say that the Jewish hierarchy at the time wouldn't have wanted what they perhaps saw as a "cult" wiped out, but the Romans ultimately were the ones in charge and would have just as much incentive in squashing any potential rebellion.

History is written (or at least spun a little) by the victors after all.

That's just completely incorrect. There are many, many fragments predating Constantine I. There are at least eleven manuscripts, each parts of individual books, like St the Gospel of John or Acts, for the gathering of the entire biblical canon (OT and NT) in one book was rare until recent centuries. Dates start at c. 150 AD, and likely earlier will be located. All of these pseudo texts that some allege are the true feminist Gospel suppressed by evil Constantine, or other nonsense, are newer.

brightspark

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That's just completely incorrect. There are many, many fragments predating Constantine I. There are at least eleven manuscripts, each parts of individual books, like St the Gospel of John or Acts, for the gathering of the entire biblical canon (OT and NT) in one book was rare until recent centuries. Dates start at c. 150 AD, and likely earlier will be located. All of these pseudo texts that some allege are the true feminist Gospel suppressed by evil Constantine, or other nonsense, are newer.

I know there are fragments...do any of those fragments deal with the events leading up to and including the Crucifixion? (i.e. include Pilates washing of his hands etc)


(and I am not referring to any of the "pseudo texts" just suggesting that the Romans may have changed a few words.

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

I know there are fragments...do any of those fragments deal with the events leading up to and including the Crucifixion? (i.e. include Pilates washing of his hands etc)


(and I am not referring to any of the "pseudo texts" just suggesting that the Romans may have changed a few words.

Yes.

The idea that the Romans 'added a few words' is just silly. There is no evidence of that. None. Moreover, the NT was a text in Koine Greek, a lingua franca of ordinary folk in the Roman East, not anything any literary Roman would use as a medium of literary expression. None of the papyri show any of sneaky editing. Later St Jerome, after Constantine was dead, carried out a professional translation to replace the private Latin efforts, the vetus Itala, although making use of the Hebrew texts used by Jews for the OT. We still have all these random parts of the Acts, Letters, Gospels, in the original koine Greek, which show no villainous Constantinian alterations.

Extraordinary claims require evidence that is equally extraordinary. You can provide none.

One example suffices:

John 18:31–33 is on the front of one and on the back verses 37–38 are on the back of one piece.

trial of Our Lord wrote:

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-
ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-
ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠIΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
ΔAΙΩN


31 Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death;

32 That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said, signifying what death he should die.

33 Pilate therefore went into the hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews?

brightspark

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

Vestiapx

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

Markus Antonius

brightspark wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

Yes, the Romans didn't care what religion anyone followed so long as your allegiances were to the Roman emperor and you paid your taxes.

Quantum Erasure

Vestiapx wrote: »

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

Did you read past the title of the thread?

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

So this specific thing thing of the Procurator washing his hands has to be there? That's a new one. None of these texts with portions of Gospels, Acts, Letter diverge in any notable way. Maybe you should try support your assertions. The Romans did not persecute everyone. They often persecuted Christians and were merciless to Manicheans. Earlier some Dionysian cults were repressed by republican magistrates and some eastern sects might see their shrines slighted at times. Jews were respected for the antiquity of their faith, and the Romans only persecuted them in the context of rebellion. Even after 79 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, loyal Jews were left in peace. After another major Jewish rebellion which raged particularly in Egypt and much of the Roman East, Hadrian refounded Jerusalem as Aelia and forbade Jews to live there. 'But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews' is not factual, not remotely factual.

Vestiapx wrote: »

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

That isn't clear at all. Venerable Bede suggested the world Easter was derived from a goddess Oestre, but there is no evidence whatsoever of this deity outside the writings of Bede. Medieval and Roman writers had a love of imaginative entomologies. That religions commemorated the passage of time and the coming of spring is hardly a surprise.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Yes, the Romans didn't care what religion anyone followed so long as your allegiances were to the Roman emperor and you paid your taxes.

Provided someone was not Manichean or Christian, although the persecutions of either varied in intensity. Christianity only became a notable target in the third century AD as the Roman commonwealth strained under disease and invasion. St Augustine's early life suggests a Manichean community not in fear of its existence.

Words like anti-Semitism can really differ in meaning. William of Tyre, 12th century, Archbishop in the Crusader kingdom wrote and preached against Judaism and Jews, but had a Jew personal physician. Visceral, unrelenting hatred of Jews is more something of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Even incidents where renegade crusaders attacking German Jews trying to shelter in episcopal palaces or public fortresses have little of the unrelenting character of incidents within living memory.

Markus Antonius

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Visceral, unrelenting hatred of Jews is more something of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Even incidents where renegade crusaders attacking German Jews trying to shelter in episcopal palaces or public fortresses have little of the unrelenting character of incidents within living memory.

Exactly, which makes the idea of Christ's crucifixion marking the beginning of antisemitism (and events such as the holocaust) as spurious and bizarre to say the least.

brightspark

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

So this specific thing thing of the Procurator washing his hands has to be there? That's a new one. None of these texts with portions of Gospels, Acts, Letter diverge in any notable way. Maybe you should try support your assertions.

What about the writings of Josephus?

"When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,"

vs an Arabic version

"Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die,"

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-jesus/


Also if the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead (presumably from their viewpoint for blasphemy?) then why not by stoning? (Obviously tolerated by the Romans as Jesus had spared the adulterous woman).

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

What about the writings of Josephus?

"When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,"

vs an Arabic version

"Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die,"

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-jesus/


Also if the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead (presumably from their viewpoint for blasphemy?) then why not by stoning? (Obviously tolerated by the Romans as Jesus had spared the adulterous woman).

Papyrus P32 Titus Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P46 Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,

Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews Greek 2nd-early 3rd Century

Papyrus P66 Gospel of John Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P77 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P103 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Majuscule GA0189 Acts of the Apostles Greek 2nd-3rd Century



A searchable selection of biblical papyri and parchment. Papyrus is not necessarily ancient for the Papal chancery used this material until the seventh to eight century, but the ones listed in the link have been dated. The fairly extensive survivals from the second century of writings kept by some usually marginal people should disprove this nonsense that Constantine added words. If an Emperor wanted to do that, he would have had violent rebellion in already heavily Christian Egypt. Its substantial Jewish population might have joined, for while they liked Christians little, they liked Romans less.

You are not particularly making a strong point regarding the different readings of Josephus. The Procurator did execute Jesus, but the Temple authorities and crowd did pressure Pilate, with the Gospel of John relating an implied threat from the crowd that Pilate could find himself considered 'not a friend of Caesar.' Provincials had a right to complain about an unjust governor with this sort of wording, which the Gospel relates. Pilate was later removed and disgraced over his slaughter of Samaritans close to their sacred mountain and Temple at Mount Gerizim (the Samaritan were an element not deported like many other wealthier Jews to Babylon in earlier centuries), the last of many incidents where the Procurator overreacted. An Arab version would usually be inferior to an earlier Greek text, for Greek continued as a lingua franca a substantial time after the Arab conquest, making an Arab text of Josephus quite irrelevantly, for present purposes, late.

Peregrinus

brightspark wrote: »

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

The gospels are clear that Pilate condemned Jesus to death, and that the sentence was implemented by the Roman forces — the scourging, the centurion at the foot of the cross, the notice placed on the cross by Pilate — all that stuff. It's absurd to say that "they get such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels"; they are front and centre in the gospel accounts.

Of course, the gospels do also suggest that they did all this at the instigation of the Temple authorities, and I think the historical debate is over the extent to which this is true, versus the extent to which it is over-emphasised. There's no doubt that the gospel portrait of Pilate as weak, vacillating and averse to the infliction of unwarranted cruelty is very much at odds with what we know of him from non-gospel sources; it wouldn't be at all out of character for him to have executed Jesus as a troublemaker without bothering too much about the justice of the matter. On the other hand, that's not inconsistent with the Temple authorities also having been keen to see Jesus dealt with, and having encouraged or supported Pilate to do that.

But I think that, rather than presenting Christian antisemitism as something shaped by gospel texts that excuse Pilate, it might be more accurate to see antisemitism as the reason why Christian came to read the gospel in a way that focussed on the role of the Temple authorities and more or less ignored the role of the Roman administration in the crucifixion. As I point out above, the role they played is set out in the gospels, but perhaps it got little emphasis in the way people read the gospels.

Even the pre-Christian Roman world was quite anti-Semitic. Most of the religious cults in the Mediterranean were quite accepting of the other religious cults around them, often establishing correspondences between their various pantheons of gods (e.g. Greek Zeus is identified with Roman Jupiter), and membership of local religious traditions was generally compatible with participation in the Roman civic religion. The Jews, strict monotheists, were an exception; they would have absolutely nothing to do with any other gods. The Romans tolerated this but didn't really understand it, and it made them view the Jews as odd, hostile, uncooperative, unreliable and probably thinking they were better than everyone else.

Then came the Jewish wars, which I think the Romans say as reinforcing and confirming suspicions about Judaism and entrenching their hostility to and mistrust of Jews. This was a problem for Christians, who were seen essentially as a sect of Judaism; it gave the Christians a strong incentive to separate themselves from the Jews and to adopt and identify with the wider society's antipathy to Jews. And this, I suspect, is at the roots of Christian antisemitism. This lead Christians to embrace a reading of the gospel which glossed over the involvement of the Romans and focussed on that of the Temple authorities.

The issue is not whether certain Jewish leaders were responsible for the death of Christ - from the Gospel accounts they clearly had a great deal of responsibility - the issue which led to anti-Jewish discrimination was holding the Jewish people as a whole responsible for the actions of a small minority of their ancestors. It is this, coupled with the fact that many Jews rejected Jesus as being a false prophet, a liar, the worship of him as idolatry etc. that gave rise to anti-Jewish sentiment. Judaism, especially in the early days, forcefully rejected Christ. It should be clear to all that such fundamental disagreement would give rise to tension. Saying that the reason for tension between Christians and Jews rests on Christian efforts to 'fit in' with the Romans seems, to me, very odd indeed and an attempt to shove what is ultimately a theological issue, into a neat secular geo-political hole. We need to make reference, indeed it should be front and centre, to theology.

We need to reference the clear theological position on the crucifixion of Christ, which is that man, EVERYONE, as sinners, are responsible for Christ's suffering:

All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

Of course, the correct position is not to hold an entire group of people responsible for the past actions of a small minority, and also to respect religious and theological differences.

The point must also be stressed that antipathy, or even sometimes discrimination or persecution, (as reprehensible and wrong as it is) is a far cry from an Aryan racial ideology that views one race as superior to others, and that 'lesser' races (or the disabled etc.) can or should be culled like animals. This is not a position born from theology, rather it stems from an outright rejection of theology, a rejection of God. So-called scientific racism stems from post enlightenment thought.

Any attempt to pin or blame the Holocaust on Christianity is extremely dangerous, particularly in the modern world where group identity, nationalism, and 'othering' is rocketing and indeed fast becoming the basis on which society is run in the West. Blaming the Holocaust on religion is not only wrong, it is borderline excusing Nazism. Imagine if a Nazi said to you that that Christianity was really responsible for the holocaust, (the implication of course being that if a 'purer' form of fascism were attempted in a post-christian world it would work - you might think this unlikely but communists make similar claims in response to atrocities under communist systems) would you accept that? Of course not. We have to be careful here.

looksee

The issue is not whether certain Jewish leaders were responsible for the death of Christ - from the Gospel accounts they clearly had a great deal of responsibility - the issue which led to anti-Jewish discrimination was holding the Jewish people as a whole responsible for the actions of a small minority of their ancestors.

This is hardly surprising or unusual?!

brightspark

Yes it is fundamentally wrong to blame the Holocaust on Christianity



It should also be remembered that all the Apostles and most of the early Christians were Jewish.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

This is hardly surprising or unusual?!

I'm not sure what you mean?

smacl

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean?

Blaming the actions of a few on anyone sharing the same creed or racial origin is very common, e.g. ISIS and Islamophobia or anti-Irish sentiment in the UK following bombings in the troubles.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Blaming the actions of a few on anyone sharing the same creed or racial origin is very common, e.g. ISIS and Islamophobia or anti-Irish sentiment in the UK following bombings in the troubles.

Oh yes, very common, and of course very wrong.

Peregrinus

Well, in this context we have to remember this rather awkward verse:

Mt 27:25 wrote:

And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

It's what the people cry when Pilate, in the preceding verse, says that he thinks Jesus is innocent, but is afraid there will be a riot if he doesn't have him executed. And there's no doubt that this verse was used by Christian leaders in the Middle Ages and later to whip up antisemitic fervour; we have abundant records of that happening on repeated occasions.

Was this, as ex loco says, very wrong? Of course. But did it happen? Yes. So did the Christian movement promote and foster antisemitism? Yes, systematically, for centuries. And did this play a significant role in creating the social and cultural climate in which the Holocaust could play out? Yes. And any attempt by Christians to reckon with and atone for our own communal and institutional history of antisemitism has to confront this.

So, there's two dimensions to this. One I have already referred to; the way Christians have tended to understand this verse, and the use they have made of it, in the past 1900 years. The other is the question of why this verse is there at all. Or, rather, the questions, since you can ask this as a historical question ("Did this happen?") or as a theological question ("What does this verse signify?")

On the historical question, none of the other evangelists, whether writing before Matthew or after him, mention this. Plus, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the behaviour of Pilate described by Matthew is, based on what we know of Pilate from other sources, improbable. So what's going on here?

We note that Matthew includes a great amount of often very colourful details that other evangelists omit. It's Matthew, for example, who tells us that at the moment of Jesus' death . . .

Mt 27:51-53 wrote:

. . . behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Seriously? This happened? And neither Mark nor Luke nor John thought it worth mentioning? And there are lots of other "flourishes" in Matthew that have no parallel in other gospels.

A common account for this is that Matthew's flourishes are a literary device; they're not necessarily things that actually happened, or they may be things that happened that Matthew embroiders with spectacular detail. Either way, he does this in order to call attention to, or help the reader understand, the theological significance of the things that did actually happen. (And, no, he's not trying to mislead his readers; he expects they will understand that he's doing this.) So, if Mt 27:25 is one of these flourishes, the question becomes, why does Matthew tell us that the crowd accepted responsibility for the death of Jesus?

I'm pretty sure that we would all answer "well, not so as to pave the way for the Holocaust, anyway". But that theological answer has to sit with the uncomfortable fact that, from a historical point of view, it did play its part in paving the way for the Holocaust. Whether that's Matthew's fault, or the fault of later generations of Christians who read and interpreted Matthew in a particular way, is perhaps not, from the perspective of countless millions of murdered Jews, an important question; either way, it's Christianity's fault.