NationStates Jolt Archive

This is 1 thing about christianity thats always bugged me. I don't know too much about this so correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus say "whoever eats bread from my plate will betray me" out of Judises earshot so then Judis ate the bread and didnt really have a choice in betraying him. Apart from this did he do anything wrong? It seems like he was used by Jesus to set an example. He went to hell just because of some prophecy Jesus made. To me that isn't his fault. What do you think?

isnt his nmae Judas?

yeah your right. Judas. Havent read it for ages and I'm sh*t with spelling. Hope it doesnt go against me here.

This is 1 thing about christianity thats always bugged me. I don't know too much about this so correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus say "whoever eats bread from my plate will betray me" out of Judises earshot so then Judis ate the bread and didnt really have a choice in betraying him. Apart from this did he do anything wrong? It seems like he was used by Jesus to set an example. He went to hell just because of some prophecy Jesus made. To me that isn't his fault. What do you think?

he went to hell did he?

If Judas doesn't "betray" Jesus, Jesus doesn't die for the sins of humanity. Judas merely sets into motion the events that make Christianity Christianity, and he is forever villainized for it. It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.

I don't know where you get that Judas went to hell. (unless it's from Dante's Inferno which btw is NOT the Bible although most people don't understand the difference)

Judas did what he was supposed to do. He didn't go to Hell (assuming Hell even exists and we're not there already). Christianity did what it does best, acting without logic, and made him a scapegoat, along with the Jews and all pagans. So, even though, according to the myth of Christ, he was supposed to die and return, they were still guilty of his (necessary) death. There is no rational thought involved here.

i don't think he should be so hated as he is. after he realised what he had done, he felt genuine remourse gave back the silver pieces, begged for forgiveness for his actions and commited suicide. and what about petter? he denied jesus 3 times, he played a hand in it all. jesus in no way hinted at judas' codemnation, in fact he says of how he is fulfilling something he was chosen to do

he went to hell did he?

thats what i was thinking

what ever happened to that whole gospel of Judas thing?

i really dont think Judas was bad. he had a job that he had to do. and he has forever been seen as evil since. i personally beleive that Judas was one of the closest disciples to Jesus.

i really dont like saying if someone is saved or going to hell. there is no way to know. even the most christian of christians may not be going to heaven. and it bugs the shit out of me when people go around saying stuff like "im saved, are you?"

i was part of a youth group when i was much younger, much much younger. and the leader would tell us "stand up if you are saved". most people would stand up of course. but it was the most arrogent of things to do.

Judas did what he was supposed to do. He didn't go to Hell (assuming Hell even exists and we're not there already). Christianity did what it does best, acting without logic, and made him a scapegoat, along with the Jews and all pagans. So, even though, according to the myth of Christ, he was supposed to die and return, they were still guilty of his (necessary) death. There is no rational thought involved here.

Very correct that Christianity made Judas along with Jews during that time period a scapegoat. It is a perfect example of early anti-Semitism in the Gospels.

The name Judas Iscariot was selected to be a literary device to draw a dichotomy between Jews of that time period and early Hellenized and non-Jewish Christians. Judas, of course, was picked as an etymological play on Judah and "Jew" while Iscariot is an etymological play on Zealot. Rather than being an actual name of a person, it was an archetypal name that basically meant "the typiacl Jewish zealot." Much like we use terms like John Doe today.

I'm sure he went to hell (mathew 26.24 and 27.10 also john 17.12)

So basically this guy who is basically the reason there's now good in the world is now burning in hell. Isn't he the real saviour. Jesus sacraficed his life for human kind. Judas sacraficed his soul for eternity. I think he deserves a bit of respect. All he is now is an insult.

thats what i was thinking

what ever happened to that whole gospel of Judas thing?




http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/about.html?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com

I'm sure he went to hell (mathew 26.24 and 27.10 also john 17.12)

So basically this guy who is basically the reason there's now good in the world is now burning in hell. Isn't he the real saviour. Jesus sacraficed his life for human kind. Judas sacraficed his soul for eternity. I think he deserves a bit of respect. All he is now is an insult.

matthew 26:50

matthew 26:50

how goofy do i feel

i came into a NS general debate without access to my bible:headbang:

how goofy do i feel

i came into a NS general debate without access to my bible:headbang:

(ah don't worry, just spew out some numbers, noone will know the diff ;) )

Very correct that Christianity made Judas along with Jews during that time period a scapegoat. It is a perfect example of early anti-Semitism in the Gospels.

The name Judas Iscariot was selected to be a literary device to draw a dichotomy between Jews of that time period and early Hellenized and non-Jewish Christians. Judas, of course, was picked as an etymological play on Judah and "Jew" while Iscariot is an etymological play on Zealot. Rather than being an actual name of a person, it was an archetypal name that basically meant "the typiacl Jewish zealot." Much like we use terms like John Doe today.

Interesting. And isn't Iscariot a variation of sicarii, which was, if I recall correctly, a little knife carried by the zealots?

Interesting. And isn't Iscariot a variation of sicarii, which was, if I recall correctly, a little knife carried by the zealots?

oo oo, AND when you say iscariot, there's scary in the middle of it....

oo oo, AND when you say iscariot, there's scary in the middle of it....

You're scary.

Judas did what he was supposed to do. He didn't go to Hell (assuming Hell even exists and we're not there already). Christianity did what it does best, acting without logic, and made him a scapegoat, along with the Jews and all pagans. So, even though, according to the myth of Christ, he was supposed to die and return, they were still guilty of his (necessary) death. There is no rational thought involved here.


Jesus was a Jew, remember. Almost everyone was a Jew at the time. Christians don't hate Jews, because a lot of the Christian Faith is based on the Jewish Religion. A great book to read the the Catechism of the Catholic Church - it has everything about the church and reasons why anything is done. I don't know about other Christian faiths, though.

Very correct that Christianity made Judas along with Jews during that time period a scapegoat. It is a perfect example of early anti-Semitism in the Gospels.

You do realize that it was the Early Christians who were persecuted by the Jews right? You do realize it was the Jewish Religious Leaders who crucified Jesus right? Yea I thought you did.

I could point out that the Early Church's persecution by the Jewish Leaders as the Early form of Anti-Christian activity. Ironically, the early church tried to get the Jewish population to recognize their messiah as their Savior. Not what I call anti-semitism at all.

Everyone here realizes that Judas killed himself right?

You're scary.

:(

that was cold... just cold

Interesting. And isn't Iscariot a variation of sicarii, which was, if I recall correctly, a little knife carried by the zealots?

Ah right, my mistake. It is a variation of Sicarii, not Zealot.

You do realize that it was the Early Christians who were persecuted by the Jews right? You do realize it was the Jewish Religious Leaders who crucified Jesus right? Yea I thought you did.

I could point out that the Early Church's persecution by the Jewish Leaders as the Early form of Anti-Christian activity. Ironically, the early church tried to get the Jewish population to recognize their messiah as their Savior. Not what I call anti-semitism at all.

Everyone here realizes that Judas killed himself right?


Exactly. Sometimes a lot of the population runs on assumptions, without doing more research, ie, everyone says it, must be true.

Thank you for clearifying what I couldn't put into words.

that was cold... just cold[/QUOTE]

:fluffle: I sorry.

that was cold... just cold

:fluffle: I sorry.[/QUOTE]

aww, that's ok:fluffle:

just because i rock, doesn't mean i'm made of stone

Exactly. Sometimes a lot of the population runs on assumptions, without doing more research, ie, everyone says it, must be true.

Thank you for clearifying what I couldn't put into words.

You are most welcome :)

You do realize that it was the Early Christians who were persecuted by the Jews right? You do realize it was the Jewish Religious Leaders who crucified Jesus right? Yea I thought you did.

According to whom? Christian texts that are written as polemics against Jews? There are very few historical accounts of Jews persecuting Christians. The Gospels also don't claim that Jews crucified Jesus. Such a claim would have been too absurd even for the other absuridites in the Gospels. Rather, they claim that Pilate crucified Jesus at the request of Jews.

I could point out that the Early Church's persecution by the Jewish Leaders as the Early form of Anti-Christian activity. Ironically, the early church tried to get the Jewish population to recognize their messiah as their Savior. Not what I call anti-semitism at all.

Can you point out more than one or two spurious historical accounts of Jews persecuting Christians? Or just what the Gospels claim?

The Gospels don't portray first century history accurately, particularly when it comes to the Jews. Stress is often placed on anti-Semitic polemic, while attempting to alleviate stress on Roman persecution of Christians and Jews. This was done for a few reasons. The Gospel authors were most likely non-Jewish or Hellenized Jews. The latter, Hellenized Jews, were extremely antagonistic toward the rest of the religious Jewish community. They were not written for a Jewish audience, but a Roman non-Jewish audience. Thus, they could not afford to portray Romans accurately, and attempted to make Jews look like the 'bad guys' in contrast. They were also written during a time when Christianity was being persecuted in Judea by Romans. Thus, their Roman-sympathetic and anti-Jewish portrayal served two purposes. To get them in good with Romans, and to show them that they were against those Jewish troublemakers just like the Romans were.

The fact that the Gospels were written as anti-Semitic polemic is a topic in virtually every serious study on the motives of authorship today.

I doubt Judas thought for 1 minute that Jesus was going to die. He was a member of a Roman (Isreal was a roman province after all) resistance at the time and his handing over of Jesus was a well thought out (if doomed) plan by this resistance. Quiet simple really. Jesus is captured by Romans who put him on trial. Jesus says he's son of God (all he had to say was rise up against the romans). Jews rebel against Romans.( at least in my opinion)
Hey he was only human after all (Judas I mean)

Its a bit more complicated than that but I dont intend to write 7 A4 pages about it. Want that though email me at ugainius@eircom.net

According to whom? Christian texts that are written as polemics against Jews? There are very few historical accounts of Jews persecuting Christians. The Gospels also don't claim that Jews crucified Jesus. Such a claim would have been too absurd even for the other absuridites in the Gospels. Rather, they claim that Pilate crucified Jesus at the request of Jews.

Ahh dude. It was the Pharisees and Saducsess who wanted to crucify Jesus but couldn't without Pilate's permission. Pilate did everything he could to get Jesus off for he knew that Jesus did not deserve death. However, it was the Jewish leaders that convinced the crowd to have Barabas released and not Jesus and then Pilate told them to take him and crucify him. So yes, it was the Jewish leaders that got him crucified.

Can you point out more than one or two spurious historical accounts of Jews persecuting Christians? Or just what the Gospels claim?

I could point to Paul's crusade against the Christians. I could point out the orders of the Jewish Religious Leaders. I have a feeling though that it would fall on deaf ears.

As to the rest. You can believe that all you like. However, a study of history would prove you wrong.

Can you point out more than one or two spurious historical accounts of Jews persecuting Christians? Or just what the Gospels claim?



St. Stephan was the first Christian martyr. In this instince, he was killed by Jews.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm


I doubt Judas thought for 1 minute that Jesus was going to die. He was a member of a Roman (Isreal was a roman province after all) resistance at the time and his handing over of Jesus was a well thought out (if doomed) plan by this resistance. Quiet simple really. Jesus is captured by Romans who put him on trial. Jesus says he's son of God (all he had to say was rise up against the romans). Jews rebel against Romans.( at least in my opinion)
Hey he was only human after all (Judas I mean)


In addition to what Corneliu said, Romans also later persecuted Christians. (for example, Emperor Nero) Everyone disliked each other at that time. Any one who was a threat to anyone's power had to be shut down. Jesus was challengeing the Pharrisees and the Pharrisees were afraid.

A great, although fictional account of this, is Ben-Hur.


Also, Pilate's wife told him not condemn Jesus, for she saw in a dream that no good for Pilate would come of it. Pilate did his best, but if he didn't condemn Jesus, he would have lost his job, and hey, He was only human.

Ahh dude. It was the Pharisees and Saducsess who wanted to crucify Jesus but couldn't without Pilate's permission. Pilate did everything he could to get Jesus off for he knew that Jesus did not deserve death. However, it was the Jewish leaders that convinced the crowd to have Barabas released and not Jesus and then Pilate told them to take him and crucify him. So yes, it was the Jewish leaders that got him crucified.

And this is when the Gospels start with anti-Semitic polemic and go astray from history.

Crucifixion is against Halacha. Pharisees and Saducees viewed each other as heretical cults. The claim that either group wanted to crucify someone runs contrary to what we know about their historical practices. You might as well claim they wanted to cannablize Jesus. Claiming that they worked together to achieve some goal is akin to modern-day conspiracy theories. It would be like claiming the CIA and KGB worked together to kill JFK. This is one part in the Gospels that is universally rejected due to being unhistorical. Only Christians still believe it.

Pilate was also removed from his post in Judea for having a reputation for being bloodthirsty. He crucified 500 followers of a Samaritan messianic claiment in a valley. Again, this is where the Gospels run counter to established history. They attempt to portray Pilate as merciful, in an attempt to win the support of their audience (who was mostly non-Jewish Romans), when in fact Pilate was a cruel man who had no problem killing hundreds of Jews.

The whole "Jews crucified Jesus" story, that Pilate was merciful and tried to save him, etc. - all rejected by modern scholarship. Only Christians claim it.

I could point to Paul's crusade against the Christians. I could point out the orders of the Jewish Religious Leaders. I have a feeling though that it would fall on deaf ears.

You could, but most of what Paul claimed we know today to be false as well. The claim that Paul was a Pharisee, rejected by modern scholarship. The claim that Paul persecuted Christians and was a Pharisee, rejected by modern scholarship and contrary to established history. Most of Paul's history were false claims he made about himself in an attempt to win support. The earliest accounts of a common apologetic tactic - "I was with the enemy but now I switched sides."

As to the rest. You can believe that all you like. However, a study of history would prove you wrong.

Oh, it would? Show me a single historical work that supports your claim. Lots of Christians believe it. Lots of Christian apologists attempt to support it, too. But not a single reputable scholar or historian alive today makes such claims. Rather, everything I've outlined has been the topic for discussion since Hyam Maccoby published just that (virtually everything I've stated regarding this issue). It has become scholarly concensus. So much so, that Michael White published practically everything I've stated in a textbook/required reading for Yale Divinity School, titled From Jesus to Christianity.

St. Stephan was the first Christian martyr. In this instince, he was killed by Jews.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm



In addition to what Corneliu said, Romans also later persecuted Christians. (for example, Emperor Nero) Everyone disliked each other at that time. Any one who was a threat to anyone's power had to be shut down. Jesus was challengeing the Pharrisees and the Pharrisees were afraid.

A great, although fictional account of this, is Ben-Hur.


Also, Pilate's wife told him not condemn Jesus, for she saw in a dream that no good for Pilate would come of it. Pilate did his best, but if he didn't condemn Jesus, he would have lost his job, and hey, He was only human.

All good points thanks Otaku.

St. Stephan was the first Christian martyr. In this instince, he was killed by Jews.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm

Any historians who support the account of Stephen? None. This is an account that we find in Christian writings that are written as anti-Semitic polemic. He's a Catholic saint, and of course many of the early Catholic saints have mythical histories that are not confirmed or supported by modern scholarship.

There are scant accounts of Jews persecuting Christians in the historical record. There are even less accounts of Jews persecuting Christians in violent ways. The claims were mostly fabricated by early Christians in an attempt to distance themselves from the Jewish population and win the support of the Goy population in Rome.

Crucifixion is against Halacha. Pharisees and Saducees viewed each other as heretical cults. The claim that either group wanted to crucify someone runs contrary to what we know about their historical practices. You might as well claim they wanted to cannablize Jesus. Claiming that they worked together to achieve some goal is akin to modern-day conspiracy theories. It would be like claiming the CIA and KGB worked together to kill JFK. This is one part in the Gospels that is universally rejected due to being unhistorical. Only Christians still believe it.



Exactly why Pontius Pilate was so vital to this undertaking. Jews cannot kill themselves or others, but Romans could, which is why, instead of judging him themselves, they turned him over to the Romans, their enemies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - to say that Jesus wanted to overthrow Rome was just what the Pharisees wanted to hear, because it meant almost certain death.

What other reasons would they have given a Jew to their enemies? There aren't many that come to mind.

All good points thanks Otaku.

You're Welcome!;)

Exactly why Pontius Pilate was so vital to this undertaking. Jews cannot kill themselves or others, but Romans could, which is why, instead of judging him themselves, they turned him over to the Romans, their enemies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - to say that Jesus wanted to overthrow Rome was just what the Pharisees wanted to hear, because it meant almost certain death.

What other reasons would they have given a Jew to their enemies? There aren't many that come to mind.

You're digging yourself into a hole with this one. If you acknowledge the fact that Halacha (which you've done implictly) prohibits crucifixion, and you acknowledge the fact that Jews would not violate Halacha (which you've done implictly), then you can't also claim they would attempt to hand Jesus over to the Romans, which is a violation of Halacha as well.

In addition, you demonstrate a lack of historical understanding regarding this issue when you accuse the Pharisees. Like most Christians, I don't think you know the difference. Sadducees controlled the Temple, Pharisees did not. It was Sadducees involved in the whole crucifixion myth, not Pharisees. Of course, Christians confuse the two and the total knowledge that they tend to have of the groups is the pseudo-history outlined in the Gospels.

Any historians who support the account of Stephen? None. This is an account that we find in Christian writings that are written as anti-Semitic polemic. He's a Catholic saint, and of course many of the early Catholic saints have mythical histories that are not confirmed or supported by modern scholarship.

Can you prove to us that there aren't any historians that support Stephen's Martyrdom? An exception proves the rule, remember.

There are scant accounts of Jews persecuting Christians in the historical record. There are even less accounts of Jews persecuting Christians in violent ways. The claims were mostly fabricated by early Christians in an attempt to distance themselves from the Jewish population and win the support of the Goy population in Rome.

And there are even fewer accounts of Christians persecuting Jews. Its mostly speculation. Possibly on both sides, but documentation is overall lax for the period in history.

Exactly why Pontius Pilate was so vital to this undertaking. Jews cannot kill themselves or others, but Romans could, which is why, instead of judging him themselves, they turned him over to the Romans, their enemies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - to say that Jesus wanted to overthrow Rome was just what the Pharisees wanted to hear, because it meant almost certain death.

What other reasons would they have given a Jew to their enemies? There aren't many that come to mind.

This still doesn't reconcile the notion that the Pharisees and Sadduccees(who, as Tropical Sands pointed out, reviled each other and would no more work together than Israelis and Iraqis would) worked together. Check out Tropical Sand's website, he's done a good piece of research on this.

You're digging yourself into a hole with this one. If you acknowledge the fact that Halacha (which you've done implictly) prohibits crucifixion, and you acknowledge the fact that Jews would not violate Halacha (which you've done implictly), then you can't also claim they would attempt to hand Jesus over to the Romans, which is a violation of Halacha as well.

If this was the case, you're implying that there was no chance of corruption at this time. In every church, at every time, there has been corruption, and why would the Sadducees have been afraid of Jesus had there not been corruption?

In addition, you demonstrate a lack of historical understanding regarding this issue when you accuse the Pharisees. Like most Christians, I don't think you know the difference. Sadducees controlled the Temple, Pharisees did not. It was Sadducees involved in the whole crucifixion myth, not Pharisees. Of course, Christians confuse the two and the total knowledge that they tend to have of the groups is the pseudo-history outlined in the Gospels.

Forgive me, that was my mistake.

Any historians who support the account of Stephen? None. This is an account that we find in Christian writings that are written as anti-Semitic polemic. He's a Catholic saint, and of course many of the early Catholic saints have mythical histories that are not confirmed or supported by modern scholarship.

SO anything that "paints" Jews in a bad light even if it is accurate is anti-semetic? Ok TS, I do respect you but seriously, the respect I have for you is starting to decline with all of this BS.

This still doesn't reconcile the notion that the Pharisees and Sadduccees(who, as Tropical Sands pointed out, reviled each other and would no more work together than Israelis and Iraqis would) worked together. Check out Tropical Sand's website, he's done a good piece of research on this.

That is a very good point. I will check out his website, but as I stated before, even the most vicious enemies can work together to take down a common threat. (Democrats and Republicians anyone? :p )

Judas did what he was supposed to do. He didn't go to Hell (assuming Hell even exists and we're not there already). Christianity did what it does best, acting without logic, and made him a scapegoat, along with the Jews and all pagans. So, even though, according to the myth of Christ, he was supposed to die and return, they were still guilty of his (necessary) death. There is no rational thought involved here.

That, however, was not the intention of Christ. It was misconstrued by later medieval Christians who considered the Jews as the murderers of Christ, primarily out of jealousy in that the Jews were quite prosperous at the time, and used that as an excuse for persecution and to gain control of Jewish trade, wealth, and property. To quote from Kingdom of Heaven (you may or may not like the movie, that is irrelevant; the following quote is what is important and really, quite true): "There is so much done in Christendom that Christ would incapable."

Can you prove to us that there aren't any historians that support Stephen's Martyrdom? An exception proves the rule, remember.

Yes, Maccoby has already proven that to be untrue. But, aside from that you're responding to the fact that no historians affirm it as true by asking me to show you a historian that claims otherwise. This is a fallacy of shifting the burden.

And there are even fewer accounts of Christians persecuting Jews. Its mostly speculation. Possibly on both sides, but documentation is overall lax for the period in history.

Uh no, there aren't. Its insulting to the memories of Holocaust survivors and Jews throughout the Middle Ages for you to even assert such a thing. We have entire sourcebooks that contain nothing but Midieval accounts of Jews being persecuted by Christians, such as Gilbert Dahan's The Christian Polemic against Jews in the Middle Ages.

If you'd like to check online, Fordam University has an online sourcebook of Jewish history with hundreds of accounts of Christian persecution of Jews. A good place to start would be The Jewish Middle Ages (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html#The%20Jewish%20Middle%20Ages). Make sure to check out the subheadings Jewish Communities and Individuals in Christendom, Jews and the State in Christendom, and Christian Anti-Semitism.

That is a very good point. I will check out his website, but as I stated before, even the most vicious enemies can work together to take down a common threat. (Democrats and Republicians anyone? :p )

That is indeed true.

If this was the case, you're implying that there was no chance of corruption at this time. In every church, at every time, there has been corruption, and why would the Sadducees have been afraid of Jesus had there not been corruption?

This is the fallacy of circular reasoning. You're assuming that because the Gospels, accepted by modern scholarship to contain anti-Semitic polemic, claims that Sadducees were afraid of Jesus, then it demonstrates corruption in Jewish politics of this time (which again, is only supported by the Gospels and no other historical accounts). The fact is, there is no historical evidence that Sadducees were afraid of Jesus.

In addition, you demonstrate a lack of historical understanding regarding this issue when you accuse the Pharisees. Like most Christians, I don't think you know the difference. Sadducees controlled the Temple, Pharisees did not. It was Sadducees involved in the whole crucifixion myth, not Pharisees. Of course, Christians confuse the two and the total knowledge that they tend to have of the groups is the pseudo-history outlined in the Gospels.

yeah, i noticed that too. it was the sadducees that took most power and were head of the sanhedrin, but i don't think you should say 'most christians', but rather a lot of them, kinda a generalisation

SO anything that "paints" Jews in a bad light even if it is accurate is anti-semetic? Ok TS, I do respect you but seriously, the respect I have for you is starting to decline with all of this BS.

I never said anything that paints Jews in a bad light is anti-Semitic, even if its accurate. Rather, we're talking about Christian texts that have been proven and are accepted by modern scholarship to be inaccurate on the Jewish issue. The fact that they portray Jews in a bad light, when it is unhistorical and false, makes them anti-Semitic. Again, anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish polemic in the Gospels is a topic in every serious study of the history of the Gospels. No one denies this today. Except, of course, Christians.

Yes, Maccoby has already proven that to be untrue. But, aside from that you're responding to the fact that no historians affirm it as true by asking me to show you a historian that claims otherwise. This is a fallacy of shifting the burden.

Alright, just give me a minute to do some research, and let me see if I can prove my point.



Uh no, there aren't. Its insulting to the memories of Holocaust survivors and Jews throughout the Middle Ages for you to even assert such a thing. We have entire sourcebooks that contain nothing but Midieval accounts of Jews being persecuted by Christians, such as Gilbert Dahan's The Christian Polemic against Jews in the Middle Ages.


I was reffering to the period of time during Early Christianity, from Judas throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

I believe Hitler is completely irrelavent to this situation. That in itself is a red herring fallacy.

Uh no, there aren't. Its insulting to the memories of Holocaust survivors and Jews throughout the Middle Ages for you to even assert such a thing. We have entire sourcebooks that contain nothing but Midieval accounts of Jews being persecuted by Christians, such as Gilbert Dahan's The Christian Polemic against Jews in the Middle Ages.

Remember that word middle ages for it is over 1000 years AFTER the early church was formed and persecuted by the Jews and Romans.

Can you prove to us that there aren't any historians that support Stephen's Martyrdom? An exception proves the rule, remember.



And there are even fewer accounts of Christians persecuting Jews. Its mostly speculation. Possibly on both sides, but documentation is overall lax for the period in history.

I hate to disagree with you, but historically, the Christians have done much to persecute the Jews. When the Crusaders seized Jerusalem in the First Crusade, they sacked the city and slaughtered pretty much all of the Jews and Muslims; throughout the Middle Ages, there have been numerous instances of Jewish persecution; the pogroms in Russia were instituted by Christian rulers; the Spanish Inquisition was a Catholic drive to push all Muslims and Jews out of Spain; and these are some of the more striking examples. Also, we cannot forget the Holocaust (while Hitler himself may not have been a Christian, many of his top commanders who executed the persecution against the Jews were Christian, as was most of the population which turned a blind eye to what was going on).

I never said anything that paints Jews in a bad light is anti-Semitic, even if its accurate. Rather, we're talking about Christian texts that have been proven and are accepted by modern scholarship to be inaccurate on the Jewish issue. The fact that they portray Jews in a bad light, when it is unhistorical and false, makes them anti-Semitic. Again, anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish polemic in the Gospels is a topic in every serious study of the history of the Gospels. No one denies this today. Except, of course, Christians.

We aren't denying this, merely stating that it is not at bad as the rest of the world thinks. Those who say it is much more worse are most likely uneducated or trying to start a fight. :P

Yeah, I sympathize with Jedis. Most of them died embarassingly.

Remember that word middle ages for it is over 1000 years AFTER the early church was formed and persecuted by the Jews and Romans.

Quite true. The Early Church was persecuted by the Jews, who were quite powerful at the time, and also by the Romans; Nero is most infamous for this, I believe (that, and burning Rome)

I was reffering to the period of time during Early Christianity, from Judas throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

I believe Hitler is completely irrelavent to this situation. That in itself is a red herring fallacy.

Well, Hitler would be irrelevent if it has to do with early Christianity. I didn't know we were only talking about early Christianity. Its true that there aren't many early Christian accounts of physical persecution against Jews. However, anti-Semitism was very common among the Church Fathers and others:

The Supposed Perifdy of the Jews (http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Perfidy.html)

"Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Saviour, for through their fathers they have killed Christ." [St Augustine]

"The Jews, therefore, not only made themselves strangers to the covenants, but also dishonoured the Father and killed the Son in envy." [St Ephraim the Syrian]

".... from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ."
[Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History: Book II, Chapter 6]

"The ceremonies of the Jews are both baneful and deadly to Christians and whoever keeps them is doomed to the abyss of the devil." [St Augustine: Epistle 82]

"On account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will .... suffer more than others in that judgement which is believed to be impending over the world." [Origen: Against Celsus 2:8]

"I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time. This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots .... the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theatre: it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals .... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal." [St John Chrysostom]

And so forth. That website contains dozens of references from early Christianity that advocate the genocide, enslavement, persecution, etc. of Jews. Christians didn't have the power to do it when they were just a budding religion, but as the Middle Ages would show, once they got the power to do so they did it.

I hate to disagree with you, but historically, the Christians have done much to persecute the Jews. When the Crusaders seized Jerusalem in the First Crusade, they sacked the city and slaughtered pretty much all of the Jews and Muslims; throughout the Middle Ages, there have been numerous instances of Jewish persecution; the pogroms in Russia were instituted by Christian rulers; the Spanish Inquisition was a Catholic drive to push all Muslims and Jews out of Spain; and these are some of the more striking examples. Also, we cannot forget the Holocaust (while Hitler himself may not have been a Christian, many of his top commanders who executed the persecution against the Jews were Christian, as was most of the population which turned a blind eye to what was going on).

if they killed people in cold blood, i don't care what you say, they were not christian

I hate to disagree with you, but historically, the Christians have done much to persecute the Jews. When the Crusaders seized Jerusalem in the First Crusade, they sacked the city and slaughtered pretty much all of the Jews and Muslims; throughout the Middle Ages, there have been numerous instances of Jewish persecution; the pogroms in Russia were instituted by Christian rulers; the Spanish Inquisition was a Catholic drive to push all Muslims and Jews out of Spain; and these are some of the more striking examples. Also, we cannot forget the Holocaust (while Hitler himself may not have been a Christian, many of his top commanders who executed the persecution against the Jews were Christian, as was most of the population which turned a blind eye to what was going on).

Again, the crusades have very little to do with this. That was more of a Muslim/Christian thing.

And Russia is irrelavent.

And, please, can we keep Hitler out of this? That was nearly two millenia afterwards.

Yeah, I sympathize with Jedis. Most of them died embarassingly.

Excuse me? I am afraid I do not understand this. :confused:

Remember that word middle ages for it is over 1000 years AFTER the early church was formed and persecuted by the Jews and Romans.

Well what type of persecution are we talking about? Jews were subject to genocide and physical persecution during the Middle Ages at the hands of Christians, but they were subject to anti-Semitism and persecution in the early Church as well, at the hands of the Church Fathers. See the post above.

This is the fallacy of circular reasoning. You're assuming that because the Gospels, accepted by modern scholarship to contain anti-Semitic polemic, claims that Sadducees were afraid of Jesus, then it demonstrates corruption in Jewish politics of this time (which again, is only supported by the Gospels and no other historical accounts). The fact is, there is no historical evidence that Sadducees were afraid of Jesus.

I would like to see historical evidence that Christ even existed and wasn't just a reworking of previous myths in an attempt to try to fulfill the prophecy of the Jewish messiah.

Jews and Romans were compulsive record keepers, and yet in all my reading (I'm a history buff, btw), except in the Bible, I've seen no actual reference to Christ until the actual establishment of Christianity - even the gospel written closest to the time of Christ was written @ 75 years after the crucifixion.

Excuse me? I am afraid I do not understand this. :confused:

Its a Star Wars reference

As much as I dislike leaving in the middle of a disscussion, Work calls, and so I must go.

Thank you for the discussion - its been a while since I've worked my brain like this!:)

And I leave with a little food for thought.

if they killed people in cold blood, i don't care what you say, they were not christian

This is the no true scottsman fallacy. It sure is easy to try and remove your religion from guilt by denying that people were members of that religion, huh? Its a great cop-out. A great way to avoid dealing with the facts.

This is the no true scottsman fallacy. It sure is easy to try and remove your religion from guilt by denying that people were members of that religion, huh? Its a great cop-out. A great way to avoid dealing with the facts.

no, not a cop-out. they were not following their religion, and loving your neighbour is a huge part

I would like to see historical evidence that Christ even existed and wasn't just a reworking of previous myths in an attempt to try to fulfill the prophecy of the Jewish messiah.

You'd be waiting a while to see that evidence. So far, all of the evidence points toward exactly what you've stated. That Jesus was a reworking of previous myths.

You'd be waiting a while to see that evidence. So far, all of the evidence points toward exactly what you've stated. That Jesus was a reworking of previous myths.

*chuckles*

The more I stay on this forum the more knowledge I gain that we are indeed approaching the end times.

no, not a cop-out. they were not following their religion, and loving your neighbour is a huge part

See above. Its a logical fallacy. Remember, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. You can believe whatever you like, but it doesn't make it any less illogical. Just like you can believe 2+2=14, but it doesn't mean that it changes the mathematical fact.

To be fair before the crucifiction I think all the disciples turned their back on him at some point around then and denied knowing him, they were forgiven so perhaps Judas was aswell.

To be fair before the crucifiction I think all the disciples turned their back on him at some point around then and denied knowing him, they were forgiven so perhaps Judas was aswell.

Only peter denied ever knowing him.

See above. Its a logical fallacy. Remember, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. You can believe whatever you like, but it doesn't make it any less illogical. Just like you can believe 2+2=14, but it doesn't mean that it changes the mathematical fact.

you know what? i guess you're right. once a christian always a christian, it doesn't matter if you don't practice the religion, don't acknowledge it's teachings, make whatever changes to it you want, if you don't believe in jesus or god. i hate people using the true scotsman fallacy because you really don't know what it means.

*chuckles*

The more I stay on this forum the more knowledge I gain that we are indeed approaching the end times.
You would not be the first person to fall for it …every generation people seem to think that the “End of times” is coming … they are totally convinced … yet the world moves on

I'm sure he went to hell (mathew 26.24 and 27.10 also john 17.12)

So basically this guy who is basically the reason there's now good in the world is now burning in hell. Isn't he the real saviour. Jesus sacraficed his life for human kind. Judas sacraficed his soul for eternity. I think he deserves a bit of respect. All he is now is an insult.

He burns in hell *spooky voice*, he doesn't really care about your or any's respect; I think he's fulltime-screaming in anguish. BTW, I'm sure all people quoting the bible for whatever reason will go to hell as well. Say hello to Zeudas for me.

You would not be the first person to fall for it …every generation people seem to think that the “End of times” is coming … they are totally convinced … yet the world moves on

If it occurs during this generation, I wouldn't be around when the Tribulation starts.

If it occurs during this generation, I wouldn't be around when the Tribulation starts.
Thats a big if

Thats a big if

Not as big an if as it once was but still an if nonetheless.

Not as big an if as it once was but still an if nonetheless.
Naw I figure iti s about the same size if as always

This is 1 thing about christianity thats always bugged me. I don't know too much about this so correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus say "whoever eats bread from my plate will betray me" out of Judises earshot so then Judis ate the bread and didnt really have a choice in betraying him. Apart from this did he do anything wrong? It seems like he was used by Jesus to set an example. He went to hell just because of some prophecy Jesus made. To me that isn't his fault. What do you think?

Just about every apostle had eaten from Jesus' plate. All of them were asking the question. Judas had already planned to betray Christ. Judas was in earshot, they all were. Jesus deliberately withheld identifying out-and-out who his betrayer was. The apostles really had no idea Judas was the betrayer until after the fact. The only one who knew were Judas, Jesus, God, and the Priests.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hise.htm

You'll also find evidence of the persecution of Jews by Christians on this site. It's a pretty good site and cites its sources. I'm not really interested in the debate but given some of the discussion, I thought this might help.

Wow.

This topic sure has strayed...

Judas was chosen because he already had a problem. He had no faith. He had his own god. He betrayed Christ for that god. And then he had remorse, but he never had repentance. Do I think he's in Hell? Most likely. Possibly not.

If you're looking for historical evidence of Jesus and his life, I think you're going to be disappointed. Judea was the armpit of the Roman Empire and Galilee was the armpit of Judea. One more Jewish "zealot" wasn't going to make many waves in a time of severe unrest.

As for Pilate, he definitely had some severe issues with his little slice of the pie. He'd already been warned about controlling the Jews. They knew they had him by the short hairs and that's why they would threaten that Pilate was no friend of Caesar if he let Jesus go.

To say that the Jewish leaders wouldn't resort to deception would be ludicris. He was threatening their authority. They had managed through the Maccabees to place themselves firmly in charge. Why wouldn't they get rid of him.

If you read any of the writings of Paul, you see nothing but compassion for his fellow Jews. He even claimed that he would damn himself to save them if he could. I'm not sure where the idea that the Jews were evil and should be punished came from, but it's not taught in the Bible. And just because "Christians" do it doesn't make it proper even for the religion. There is such a thing as hijacking and hysteria.

And while we're on the subject of religious persecution, don't the Jews tout the fact that they ran all those dirty Caananites out as legend and a source of pride? Or do we have to constantly play tit for tat?:headbang:

Okay, a few months ago the y found the "Gospel of Judas," which apparently says that Jesus already knew he was going to die, and that Judas would betray him, but the other disciples didn't know it and thus villainized Judas, though if Jesus was the All-Knowing Son of the All-Knowing Father/Mother then he would have had the steering wheel the whole time, unless God had it and was taking Jesus places (and Jesus already knew the place where He was going.)

And who ever said the Judas went to Hell...??? For all we know, he could have gone to heaven, because he helped Jesus save the world because of a possible conspiracy between the two. Heh...

[/blithering rant]