Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jdavidb (1361)

jdavidb
  (email not shown publicly)
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/

J. David Blackstone has a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering and nine years of experience at a wireless telecommunications company, where he learned Perl and never looked back. J. David has an advantage in that he works really hard, he has a passion for writing good software, and he knows many of the world's best Perl programmers.

Journal of jdavidb (1361)

Friday February 20, 2004
08:37 AM

Most evil idea since sacrifice to Molech

[ #17518 ]

I first heard the idea that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus at about the age of 21. I was raised in a true Christian home, and honestly never heard this hogwash before.

In my family we are loyal only to the religion of the Bible. If you can't prove it by the Bible, it's not our belief. Like early Protestant Reformers, we reject the Catholic Church, but we also reject most of Protestantism as well. Thus our religion can't be defined by examining what a majority of Christians say or said at one time.

The idea of holding Jews responsible for the death of Jesus is totally foreign to the New Testament. The standard answer you'll hear to this nowadays is that we are all responsible for the death of Jesus: He died for our sins, and would have died for even a single one of us. That's theologically true, but I wanted to point out something that might mean more to those of a more secular mindset.

The fact is that all those responsible for the death of Jesus are dead. Noone living today is responsible for the death of Jesus in a strict sense. When the Bible talks of Jews and Romans crucifying Jesus, it nowhere suggests that ALL Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, but only the specific Jews of that generation who chose to be involved (mostly religious leaders, and not even including all of them). Genetic hereditary guilt is foreign to both the Old and New Testaments and is an idea condemned in Ezekiel 18. (Yes, the Catholic Church and the Reformer Calvin were totally, blasphemously wrong about this.) No Jew living today (or in the Middle Ages) is responsible for the death of Jesus.

There is a statement at the crucifixion of Jesus from the Jews involved when Pilate attempts to disclaim responsibility that might cause confusion. They said, "His blood be upon us and on our children." Let me assure you that no matter what they said, they did not cause God to change His mind about Ezekiel 18 and hold their children responsible for their actions. (Let me also assure you that even though Pilate washed his hands to proclaim his innocence, he was still thoroughly responsible for what he did, too.)

The Bible itself does not hold anyone living responsible for the death of Jesus, though it does teach the theology that He died because of our sins and we are in that sense responsible. The idea of killing Jews or anyone else because of the death of Jesus is not only absurd in the light of the religion of the New Testament, it's a blasphemous excuse for murder put forward by wicked men who dared to justify the blackness in their hearts by applying the name of God to their cause. As the Bible condemns those who would use the Lord's name in vain, I imagine these people receive some of the most severe condemnation imaginable.

Addendum: What I'm trying to say is that if Mel Gibson's new movie adheres strictly to the Bible, it will not be anti-semitic, even if it uses lines that have traditionally been interpreted by evil, twisted people as anti-semitic. I've heard tell that his movie is based not only on the Gospels but on the "visions" of some man from the 18th or 19th century, though, and I haven't seen the movie, so I'll reserve judgment.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The fact is that all those responsible for the death of Jesus are dead. -- certainly one of the most sensible things one can say about anti-semitism (which is one of my favourite rant subjects.) Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is just like blaming Americans for the death of Abraham Lincoln.

    Anti-semitism is not different, at its core, from other forms of racism : it files a bunch of very different individuals, who lived at different times and in different countries, under a same totem, which is then pr

    • "The fact is that all those responsible for the death of Jesus are dead." -- certainly one of the most sensible things one can say about anti-semitism

      And it's completely secular, too, so it requires no theological overhead to accept. I'd like to be able to get all those professing Christianity as well as Jews and others to at least agree on the fact that the Bible doesn't have this bananas idea of blaming the Jews for the death of Christ, even if many professing Christians have said so. Unfortunately

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • I haven't seen Gibson's movie, but I plan to do so, because I don't like having second-hand opinions. (I'll have to reread the Gospels beforehand, though.)
    • Anti-semitism is not different, at its core, from other forms of racism : it files a bunch of very different individuals, who lived at different times and in different countries, under a same totem, which is then proposed as an object of hate to the crowds. And like most forms of racisms, (as we have seen recently during the ethnic wars in eastern Europe and in Africa, or as we see with the raise of anti-semitism in fundamentalist Muslim circles), it's actually pushed forward by people with an agenda: dist

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • Thanks for the tip. I'll start spreading the word.

    Boy, are those anti-semites going feel silly!

  • I was actually discussing Mel Gibson's movie the other day with a group of people, including a couple Christians. I personally am Jewish by heritage and atheist by religion, but I still identify as a Jew.

    One good point that was brought up was that Jesus was very much rocking the boat of the established Jewish religion, and undermining the Jews who had power at the time (and good for him for doing so!). So it'd hardly be surprising if some of those Jews did want him dead.

    People in power using that power
    • if the movie depicts the politics that would motivate some Jews to want to kill Jesus, that'd be pretty interesting, IMHO. I'm kind of doubting that's what it does, since to Christians Jesus is the son of god, not a great revolutionary.

      I don't know why you think that. Jesus as Revolutionary is throughout the New Testament. Why do you think most of his followers -- from John the Baptist, through the disciples, through to Paul -- were imprisoned and killed? And read John 11:45-57, where the plot by the J
  • That was his whole purpose in coming as a man in the first place. To save his people for their sins. The only way to do that was to be the perfect sacrifice. Being God, he *could have* saved himself at any time he wanted. He chose to sacrifice himself so that his people could have a right relationship with their God.
    • Thank you.

      I myself am not particularly religious, but I was raised in a religious manner.

      It seems to me that the entire "blame" issue seems to overlook some pretty important issues (and I'll not address the issue of Jesus and God being the same... since Jesus is referred to as the "son of God" I will refer to them as seperate entities... even tho that may not be so).

      - Did God know that Jesus was going to die?

      - Did God want Jesus to die?

      - Could God have stopped the death of Jesus if desired?

      - Did God p
      • I has to do with love. God could have created Adam and Eve as perfect beings that blindly did what he wanted. Where is the love there? Instead he created them innocent with the ability to choose to obey. God knowing they would "fall" into sin created a way that people could be reconciled back to a Holy, righteous, God who cannot wink at sin.

        Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
        A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.

        Q: Did God want

        • It was the only way to forgive His people for their sins. -- IANAC, but I think I understand Christian mythology quite well. So I don't agree. John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature. So this was not the only way -- because God is infinitely powerful -- but this was the better way to have Christians have a personal relationship with Him. How could have God demonstrated
          • Well, you'll hear different perspectives from those who call themselves Christian. I unapologetically represent myself as a "true Christian" and reject Catholicism as well as most Protestant denominations. As I stated in my original journal entry, the idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine and thus not a part of my religion.

            I've never heard Catholics express anything about John the Baptist in regard to original sin or not: I've only heard that claim made about Mary and Jesus

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • Scripture references:

              • Ezekiel 18
              • Romans 6:23
              • Matthew 3:13-17
              • Hebrews 9:15 (Christ death atones for sins committed under the first covenant (Jewish Torah))
              • Hebrews 10
              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • The idea of hereditary guilt or original sin is not a Biblical doctrine. I quite like this theology, but living in a Catholic country, I'm obviously more familiar with the Catholic doctrine, which, IIRC, teaches that babies are not sin-free, even Jesus. I may be wrong, I'll have to check my sources.

              Most Catholics nowadays think that baptism is the only way to wash away the original sin. This is actually not a truly Catholic doctrine -- Augustine explains it quite well in the City of God: during the first ce

              • The Biblical teaching is that baptism is for washing away sin (Acts 22:16), but not for washing away original sin; it washes away one's own sin. In the New Testament noone EVER delayed baptism. (Examples: Acts 2:41, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 16:33, especially the last one.) The doctrine is that Christ is coming at any minute (I Thessalonians 5) completely unexpectedly and that after that event (or, of course, one's own death, which could also happen at any minute) there is no longer any chance t

                --
                J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • The Biblical teaching is that sin may only be forgiven through a perfect blood sacrifice of immense worth and that only Jesus satisfied that sacrifice.

              Yes, but who decided that would be the method? And when He decided it, didn't he already know he would send his Son to die? It's sorta like me deciding that I will buy a Mac, and then saying "the only computer I can buy is a Mac," as though it were my only choice to begin with.

              I agree that Jesus is the way, but not that God couldn't have chosen another w
          • John the Baptist was a sinner. There are people "declared" righteous by God because of their belief in God and the Messiah.

            However, if you read the scripture John the Baptist was confused himself when Jesus asked to be baptised. It wasn't because Jesus had sin, for he was sinless. That is why Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice. Jesus answers him "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It was a picture. In the OT the Aaronic priesthood was anointed with oil, so this

          • John the Baptist was born without being tainted with the original sin -- else, he couldn't have baptised Jesus and actually "wash" him from the original sin due to his human nature.

            That's not true, IMO. Nothing in the Bible suggests it, that I know of. John the Baptist was not washing anyone's sins away: baptism was only a symbol of a person's committment.

            And beyond me seeing no suggestion that requires JB born without original sin, we see statements from people like Paul -- who went through an experie
            • I checked in the Catholic Encyclopedia [newadvent.org], and indeed, it seems that John the Baptist was cleansed from the stain of original sin in the womb. I think that Augustine wrote about this. Add this to the list of truths that differ between the different kinds of Christianisms.
              • I think what the passage means is that John the Baptist was the first to receive the Holy Spirit, just as the disciples did later in Acts, and as Christians have been since then. If that is the sense it is meant I'd agree, but I don't consider myself today not "tainted by original sin" just because the Holy Spirit is in me. Maybe it's just a semantic point.
        • Q: Did God know that Jesus was going to die?
          A: Certainly. The Bible states the plan was created even before the foundations of this world were set.


          I guess my point was/is... how can anyone be to blame?

          They were nothing but pawns.

          Or... was there some way to "surprise" God and actually make something he willed not happen? Was there some way to foil the "plan"?

          I just have a hard time believing that there is fate/destiny and free will at the same time.

          I mean... it is kind of like me and my two year old bo
          • Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.

            The idea that people are inherently sinful is not found in the Bible, whether it be the idea that people inherit sin from Adam (contradicted in Ezekiel 18) or some other version. However, the Bible does teach that everyone sins (at least, those

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • Just so you know, I (and the Bible) disagree with the statement by RobertX that Before a person is saved they will not choose God because they have a sin nature and a dead spirit. This would make it impossible to be saved, since you have to choose God to be saved.

              Not at all. The idea -- which is supported by the Bible -- is that a person will not choose God until God works in his heart. See Ephesians 1. I don't come down on any side of this debate, but there is clearly support for both positions.

              The
  • If I make a World War II movie that portrays the Germans as bad guys (as they were), does that mean I hate Germans today? Nope.

    (And being half German, it would be rather strange).