I went to school with a few Jewish kids but wasn't close to any of them. At university, one of my dearest friends was Jewish, and we remain close even now.

When I hear the "Jews will not replace us!" chants, and learn about stuff like the Pittsburgh Pogrom, I can't help but wonder.

Surely, they can't still be blamed as "Christ-killers" after two millenia, give or take. So, what is it??

I wasn't until the 1960s that the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. If it took the Catholics nearly 2,000 years to come around, you can be sure that many, many people still cling to that for the reason (or twisted justification) for their hatred.

About 15 years ago, I taught a Sunday School class of 13-year-olds. There was a girl in that class who had grown up with very little exposure to the LDS church. She was the daughter of a single mom who never attended church herself, but she dropped off her daughter most Sundays. One Sunday, the term "Jews" came up during a lesson, and she interrupted me by blurting out "Did you know that the Jews killed God!"

I calmly reassured her that Jews have no guilt for the crucifixion, but I worried about her. It wasn't the first time that she said something troubling that I suspected came from her mother's boyfriend.

I'm sure there are lots of driving forces. Jews tend to be industrious people. In old Europe they tended to be merchants and traders and many ended up being successful in banking.

The Jews seem to be a scape goat because they were a minority, worked together, and some tended to be very successful and have influence in society.

I think Jews tended to be persecuted because they were a group that tended to stick to themselves and viewed the gentiles as lesser people. Some jews can be pretty arrogant. This does not win friends.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure there are lots of driving forces. Jews
> tend to be industrious people. In old Europe they
> tended to be merchants and traders and many ended
> up being successful in banking.

So being "industrious" and "successful" is a reason to dislike an entire group of people?


> The Jews seem to be a scape goat because they were
> a minority, worked together, and some tended to be
> very successful and have influence in society.

OMG. Being successful and having influence. That will never do. Many other groups, families, nationalities meet that description too.


> I think Jews tended to be persecuted because they
> were a group that tended to stick to themselves
> and viewed the gentiles as lesser people. Some
> jews can be pretty arrogant. This does not win
> friends.

All Jews "viewed the gentiles as lesser people". Is this a known fact? Is it part of their religious belief? Even if so, so what. Sounds similar to what many religions teach - adherents are the chosen ones, etc.

Stop the presses - "some Jews can be pretty arrogant". There are many arrogant people around. This does not explain nor excuse the phenomenon of hating an entire race or religion or group of people.

Applying a certain characteristic or belief to an entire group, rather than taking people as individuals, is the definition of prejudice or being anti-xyz. IOW, wrong-headed, short-sighted, wrong, wrong, wrong. Like signs back in the last century indicating "no Irish or English need apply" for certain jobs. Or putting people (Japanese) in camps due to their ethnicity.

I had naively thought we left all that behind as we advanced into the new century. Obviously not. So many examples this very day where we demonize the other, view people as groups rather than individuals, fail to be understanding and compassionate. "I'm all right Jack" so to hell with you is the order of the day for a very disappointing large number of people.

The root causes and ongoing nature of anti-Semitism are complex. Blaming a group for the prejudice against itself is intolerant in the extreme. That is how people justify their own negative -isms against those they consider inferior. The fault lies with the intolerant ones. All Jews, for instance, are not this, that or the other (as in all are arrogant - or even some are arrogant). Even if true, which obviously is not the case - people are individuals - it's not a valid excuse (is there any? NO) for rampant prejudice and injustice to be visited upon an entire group or nationality or ethnicity or religion. (Although one could argue we exempt Mormonism from that - but we don't preach hate - that's the difference - and we speak from our own personal experience, with concrete valid examples and discussions of our own feelings and events, etc).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 12:39PM by Nightingale.

I don't think that Rubicon was saying that he/she had this opinion, only that they thought this is what others who did thought.

For instance, some people who are poor think that all the rich must be scoundrels. They cannot believe that it is their own decisions or bad luck that put them where they are. This is illogical, but it happens.

Make sense?

Thanks, Heidi. I was intending to speak in general. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

I did read Rubicon's post as stating what others think. Except for the last two sentences. They come across as his own sentiment.

Sorry if I got that wrong.

Party because of their liberal politics and they are sterotyped as bankers and when people have financial problems they blame jews.

About 6 years ago my daughter had a seminary teacher who told the class that the Holocaust happened because the Jews rejected Christ.

My daughter came home disturbed by this and we told her that it was BS. I contacted the Bishop and let him know that the seminary teacher was out of line.

The seminary teacher taught hate and ignorance. There are others who believe the same, ie, they 'had it coming' for rejecting Jesus.

(and it stretches through most of 'Christian' history) is that those who reject the Jews are themselves rejecting Christ. I don't mean it in the "Jesus was a Jew" sense, but that hatred, separation, and exclusion or persecution are completely opposite to Christ's inclusive message of loving all as you love yourself (or your family or in-group) and to see him in everyone.

One contributor to the problem is the symbolic language of the New Testament, which is too concrete here for many not to take literally. "Jews" in the New Testament (particularly the Pharisees and Sadducees, who figured as bad examples) REPRESENT not actual, literal people, but a certain literal level of taking everything belonging to a higher spiritual Truth. "Jesus" always represents the non-literal or non-ritualistic or psychological understanding of higher Truth.

"In the psychological teaching of the Gospels, a man is not taken as what he appears to be, but as what he most deeply IS. This is one reason why Christ attacked the Pharisees. For they were APPEARANCES. They appeared to be good, just, religious, and so on. In attacking the Pharisees, he was attacking that side of a man that pretends, that keeps up appearances for the sake of outer merit, fear, praise, the man who in himself is perhaps even rotten. The Pharisee, psychologically understood, is the outer side of a man who pretends to be good, virtuous, and so on. It is that side of yourself. This is the Pharisee in every man and this is the psychological meaning of Pharisee. EVERYTHING SAID IN THE GOSPELS, WHETHER REPRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A PARABLE, MIRACLE OR DISCOURSE, HAS A PSYCHOLOGICAL MEANING, APART FROM THE LITERAL SENSE OF THE WORDS [my emphasis]. Therefore the psychological meaning of the Pharisees refers, not to certain people who lived long ago, but to oneself now--TO THE PHARISEE IN ONESELF, to the insincere person in oneself, who, of course, cannot receive any real and genuine psychological teaching without turning it into an occasion for merit, praise, and award." (Maurice Nicoll, "The Language of Parables," in _The New Man_).

You can see how many people, themselves still stuck on the literal level that is represented by the word, would read the New Testament as an indictment of "the Jews."

Thus the symbolic meaning of "the Jews killed Jesus": the literal, appearance-valuing, psychologically opaque, flatland orientation blocks out the higher vision--IN ONESELF. And taking "Jews" to refer to Jewish people, past or present, is the very literalistic pitfall that the symbolism warns against.

You are superimposing a modern interpretation on historical facts.

The gospels were written during a protracted and bitter political struggle. The people who wrote the later gospels blamed the Jews, which is what the Pauline sects preferred. When the editors decided which gospels to include in what would become the NT, they intentionally chose the ones that served the needs of the nascent Catholic church.

All of that is well documented history. It may be necessary to reinterpret the NT to render it palatable to modern readers, but such is tendentious revisionism. By the late decades in the first century, Christianity was undeniably anti-Semitic.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2018 04:10AM by Lot's Wife.

You may be right about the general "blame the Jews" trope being commonplace even among the early Christians. That would show, at least to me, that Christ's teachings were read exoterically by the majority and thus misunderstood as complementing their own egoic biases.

But your 'historical, factual' reading misses (or dismisses?) the idea that there was a very strong tradition of allegorical writing and understanding. It was the psychological language of the day, at a time when people did not have much of a sense of history or historicism separate from myth. ALL of the Bible, not just the fantastic parts like a 7-day creation, Adam & Eve, the Flood, etc., but the so-called histories were all understood symbolically by the learned. We "moderns" have lost that kind of learning, probably as a necessary stage in developing 'rational' thought. In this we have gained much in science but also lost much esoterically.

You are saying, then, that early Christians (and Jews) didn't believe in the 7-day creation, the Flood, the miracles in Egypt, etc?

The science of the day did not contradict those beliefs, surely. So your line of reasoning would suggest that Christians were so intelligent that they disbelieved things that God taught because they intuitively understood that what--God was wrong? God didn't really exist?

I can't answer that, but I doubt that any homogenous generalization can be made about the "early Christians (and Jews)" as to levels of understanding.

What is more important, I think, is that if you, now, can't appreciate an allegorical meaning, you will scarcely believe that people 2000 years ago could see it.

By the way, have you thought about the inner meaning of "Lot's wife," from Genesis? She is not an individual but an aspect of Lot himself on the journey of transformation. Sodom is his present (or old) self, which he must leave if he is to evolve consciously, and he (or parts of himself) is reluctant. He is told to go to the "mountain," a higher level. His daughters and his wife are intimate aspects of his own consciousness that he wants to take with him, unchanged, like one's present habits and perceptions. Think of an alcoholic wanting to get sober. They hold "him" back. "Salt" has different meanings in the language of parables, but here it means something sterile and dead. The narrative depicts the terrific struggle in a person during psychological rebirth and how involving parts of oneself--parts that look back nostalgically on the past--would prevent this, so must be left behind. "But his wife looked back from behind him and she became a pillar of salt" (Gen. 26).

Again, in the language of Freudian objects relation theory, she is not an individual, a whole-object, but an obsolescent part-object.

Or...it could be a story meant to frighten women into doing what they're told to do, or "god" will punish them horribly.

Not to mention including a "positive" counter-example: the good girls (daughters) who did what they were told and didn't look back got to live! And have sex with their dad to preserve his line!

What I personally find both sad and amusing are the great lengths people go to "interpret" what are, on their face, a collection of rather poorly-written old myths. Oh, well.

Hey, those are my daughters you're defaming!

Let's just say the patriarchs wrote the "history." The truth is more Lorena Bobbit.

I suggest keeping an eye on your daughters...:)

It's not I who have to worry about my daughters but rather any man who pisses them off.

They are more likely to employ Occam's razor* to solve such a problem.







*Remember, when reading that reference, that I don't "do" allegory or metaphor.

I'm surprised that you accuse me of offering unreasonable generalizations since you insist that people in Biblical times were all allegorical thinkers.

A few quick points. First, the person whose writing you quote--Maurice Nicoll--ws a quack. He had no training in history or literary technique. He is a mysticist, a New-Ager from the last "New Age," an enthusiast of Ouija boards.

Second, allegory has always been a means of communication among educated elites. To argue that all people used allegory in Biblical times is erroneous--and demonstrably unhistorical. Or are we to interpret Josephus and the early Roman historians allegorically too?

Occam would have no patience with this nonsense. He would say that any theory that requires the rejection of credible history is an accretion of barnacles on the Good Ship Truth that should be cut away. He would observe that you and Nicoll have an evidently strong need to rescue the Bible from scientific and historical falsity and that that amply explains your assertion that the Bible was meant to be read as allegory.

People slaughtered each other over Biblical verses. They fought wars over it. They enslaved people over it and oppressed others. The vast majority of the people who did that were interpreting the Bible literally. They weren't thinking or acting allegorically.

A wholesale and ad hominem dismissal of the notion, without any consideration of the content of the ideas.

Yes, allegory was a kind of code for the "elites," since the masses were often driven by a combination of literalness and superstition. Is it so different now? As for Nicoll's interpretation (and he was a Cambridge-trained medical doctor and pioneer of psychiatry, colleague of Jung), I have to ask, "What does it mean to me?" rather than "What did those scriptures mean to ancient peoples?"--which I have no way of knowing. Along the sense of Alfred North Whitehead's "inert knowledge," I have to consider: what is the purpose of "knowing" something?

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A wholesale and ad hominem dismissal of the
> notion, without any consideration of the content
> of the ideas.

Nope. I considered and rejected his ideas. The question I asked by looking into his mysticism was to see why you were relying so heavily on him. I would add that Jung himself was a mysticist, so you can't really cite him as enhancing Nicolls' understanding of history and literary analysis. Whether a writer has any foundation in the subject he addresses is not an ad hominem attack any more than asking a physician if he has a medical degree.




-----------------
> Yes, allegory was a kind of code for the "elites,"
> since the masses were often driven by a
> combination of literalness and superstition.

That is the point I made above. Explicitly.



----------------
> Is it
> so different now?

Nope, as I wrote above.



-----------------------
> . . .I have
> to ask, "What does it mean to me?" rather than
> "What did those scriptures mean to ancient
> peoples?"--which I have no way of knowing.

Exactly. Which is why Nicoll's, and your, assertion that Biblical peoples all engaged in allegorical reasoning--that, in your view, they did not take the Garden of Eden and other things seriously--is baseless.

We do, however, have ways of inferring quite dependably what those peoples thought. We simply have to look at their actions: the number of times Biblical and early Christian peoples fought wars and discriminated against others in accordance with Biblical teaching. Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words come 1900 years later and are expressed by people who haven't studied the history in question.



------------
> the sense of Alfred North Whitehead's "inert
> knowledge," I have to consider: what is the
> purpose of "knowing" something?

That is true: personal epistemology is critically important. It is, however, entirely separate from Nicoll's fatuous claims about Palestinian farmers.

Thanks for the discussion! Whether others change their views or not, threads are a chance to clarify one's own thinking.

Agreed. Thank you as well.

What is the reason for bigotry against Blacks, lynchings? What is the reason for homophobia--gay bashings? What is the reason for anti-muslim such as our current leaders exhibit? What is the reason for all of the anti? If you ask only about the jews you are going to get a Jew related answer that may not be accurate.

I honestly think there is a human need for those who have not come into their own enlightenment and personal power, to see someone as the enemy, to have someone to be mad at, to blame someone for ones own lack of success.

Jews are not the only ones who get the "anti" treatment. The list is long. The "killed Christ" thing is only the excuse, not what is at the base of the hate. I know of no one who even gives that "killed Christ" idea a consideration.

Too often the other 5 million non-jews killed in the holocaust are forgotten. The gay people were even the lowest rank in the camps and when the war ended many were taken to prison to "finish their sentences." From what I have read the Jehovah's Witnesses in the camps were some of the most valiant. Anti-semitism is part of a larger problem.

The answer lies with the people who hate because often, for them, any object will do. The answer isn't with the hated. It's about supremacy which is a very adaptable human trait.

I’ve heard it referred to as the politics of resentment. Resentment can either be fostered, as in the case of Cain, or not.

Perfect answer.

Jews have been persecuted for as long as they've been a religious tribe of nomads.

That they do well in business initially started out as that was what they were limited to since they couldn't own land. Banking and the professions were but a few opportunities open to them, and they excelled at them.

That and the holy book, being basically the history of the Jewish people, their religion, genealogy, their god, their stories becoming analogous to Judeo-Christian heritage for millenia. They are the 'people of the book.'

They do well in academia and the sciences, arts, etc. Being able to reason and have constructive dialogue are some of the things they are known for. It is taught from early age on. They learn from their Jewish families and schools, Talmud and Torah teachings, etc.

Their worst foes are the monotheistic religions Christianity and Islam, at least historically. Each began from the same original writings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Reminds me of the cola wars. Coke vs Pepsi. “Dude, it’s pop”.

"It is our burden to bear" (to be reviled). One of the rabbis said this when being interviewed after the shooting. It sounded so sad.

For those who are asking the "why" of contemporary anti-Semitism, which is obviously based on the anti-Semitism of Western history, here is Henry Abramson (who is a historian, a professor of history at university level, and an author of historical books) explaining, and (as always in his lectures) he presents the historical material in very interesting ways. [For those who have watched most of his other lectures--which are presented to a group, and always begin with a Jewish joke--this lecture is presented in a presenter-to-individual-listener format, and does not begin with his usual Jewish joke.]

I strongly recommend this lecture to anyone who is interested in this subject: "Modern Antisemitism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hb_G62BgaM

To answer other questions in this thread: Historically, Christians were forbidden by the laws of (usually) European lands to lend money for profit. Because lending money for profit is an essential component of any kind of functioning post-ancient society, Jews became very important essentials in the various economies because, not being Christians, THEY [virtually alone] were legally allowed to lend money for profit (INCLUDING to the rulers of those various lands).

Also extremely informative (and interesting!):

"Jews in the Medieval Economy"

[Search for this on YouTube. I cannot figure out how to type the address.]

Or you can go to YouTube and search for "Henry Abramson lectures" on all kinds of historical subjects (including some fascinating lectures on early Christianity, and one lecture, titled "Who Was Babatha?," on a very litigious woman who lived during the general timeframe as Jesus, who left behind her cache of legal papers of various kinds, which offer an incredible view into daily life at that period of time and in that place).



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 05:16PM by Tevai.

I would add that while some Jews were successful traders and financiers, and hence became the object of "gentile" resentment, the vast majority were poor farmers and craftsmen and laborers. The Jew as rich banker or behind-the-curtain manipulator of events was itself a vast distortion of reality.

But you know that.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would add that while some Jews were successful
> traders and financiers, and hence became the
> object of "gentile" resentment, the vast majority
> were poor farmers and craftsmen and laborers. The
> Jew as rich banker or behind-the-curtain
> manipulator of events was itself a vast distortion
> of reality.
>
> But you know that.

Very good reminder, Lot's Wife--and a point I tend to forget to make (since I am so aware of the preponderance of Jews throughout history who lived extremely humble lives, often in real poverty).

Thank you!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 05:17PM by Tevai.

It's an easy point for people (not you) to neglect because the poor neither write history books nor frequently appear in them. Also, to scapegoat someone effectively you need to describe them as a threat--and the rich jew is a lot more frightening than the dirt farmer from the Ukraine.

Even the powerful Jewish families today had humble origins. The Rothschilds were indigent until they made some good trades and suddenly became an international banking house. Likewise the Annenburgs, who like most poor Jews didn't have family names, were officially registered a couple of centuries ago as "Annenburg" because they were the Jews who lived "on the hill."

The wave of Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the 20th century were extremely poor. The wave that came west from Germano-centric Europe in the 1930s were generally more middle class, but they were assuredly disenfranchized. They have since enriched American culture and science immensely.

So yes, there are parallels to the more recent Latino immigrants, who work extremely hard, pay taxes like everyone else, and aggressively educate their children. Watch what those people achieve over the next few decades.

I will add three points to this discussion.

The first is the human hatred of the "other." People find all sorts of reasons to hate groups that are not like themselves. This is particularly true when times are hard. Which leads to my second observation: governments and social leaders find it valuable to have a scapegoat to blame when things go wrong. If the economy turns south or a country loses a war that it should have won, it is easier to blame the "alien within" for the failure than to accept responsibility oneself.

Third, hostility to minorities always increases when nationalistic pressures mount. Anti-Semitism increased sharply during the Reformation, when most of the Germanic peoples were separating from the Catholic Church; and again when the Napoleonic Wars led to modern nationalism.

What we see in the United States today is a reflection of those trends. Times are tough for a lot of people--have been for a few decades--so old hatreds and resentments are strengthening, and social and political agitators are stoking those sentiments as a means of achieving their own ends. It should not be surprising that greater nationalistic tendencies coincide with an upsurge in anti-Semitism, since they are two sides of the same coin.

Similar things are happening elsewhere. The demonization of Islam in Europe is likewise the concomitant of popular anxiety and increasing nationalism. This is how humans behave when at their worst.

There was much historical resentment toward Jews. Some of it persists unto these times.

Any religious arguments against Jews killing Jesus or rejecting salvation (or whatever) are largely bogus claims masking economic or political agendas.

First, Jews were a minority with little political power. Jews weren't prominent in nobility, military and were banned from most trades. So Jews made their living in banking, finance, jewelry and precious metals and professions such as medicine and law.

These careers were considered disreputable. They engendered resentment among the population because often they dealt with people during a crisis. How dare a Jew profit from my misfortune?

Second, social services were traditionally provided by churches. Jews didn't contribute to tithes.

If you wonder how Jews were treated, consider the wide resentment across our society against the 1% or undocumented immigrants. What do the 1% owe society? How can undocumented immigrants be allowed to claim social services?

These were the motives of those who were anti-Semitic throughout centuries past. These attitudes persist - although the targets of the social aggression may change.

As Tevai pointed out, Jews went into banking because Christians were forbidden to practice "usury", i.e. loans with interest. They provided a necessary service.

They also tended to be driven out of town at the drop of a hat. If you own a grist mill, getting driven out of town is a problem. You can't take your mill with you. Of course, the Jews generally were not allowed to won real estate anyway (neither were a lot of the poor gentiles, for that matter), so they tended toward occupations where most of your occupation resided in your head (lawyer, doctor, writer), or could be easily carried (diamond merchants, who could carry their entire inventory in a pocket).

Interesting sidelight: the Dutch were a liberal bunch, even 500 years ago, and took in Jews from other parts of Europe, notably Spain and Portugal. The Dutch invaded NE Brazil somewhere around late 1500s iirc (too lazy to look it up) and a lot of Jews from Holland resettled in and around Recife. When Portugal recaptured the land, the Jews left/were tossed out. They either went to the other Dutch colony in the western hemisphere - New Amsterdam, now known as NYC, or they returned to Amsterdam, where there is to this day a Portuguese synagogue on tourist maps of Amsterdam.

So, NYC had a large Jewish population several centuries before the large influx of eastern European Jews at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s.

the "casting out" in 1492, of all non-Christians from the Iberian Peninsula.

In popular English: The Expulsion.

Also known in English as: The Alhambra Decree, [or] the Edict of Expulsion.

In Spanish: Decreto de la Alhambra, Edicto de Granada.

What we know of as "the Expulsion" only targeted Jews.

The Iberian Peninsula had a significant Muslim population (which had existed for centuries), but I don't think Muslims (as a group) were part of this particular royal decree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 07:27PM by Tevai.

The suppression of Judaism was part of the drive to centralize power and unify the Spanish people. So too were the Inquisition, the broader attempt to suppress heresy, and the wars against Iberian Islam. Ultimately the crown succeeded, and Spain lost its main conduits to the higher intellectual and scientific knowledge of the Moslem world as well as much trade and financial exchange.

It is no coincidence that that was when Spain's fall as a global power began. The country had benefited from immense resources that the rest of Europe lacked, and now it threw its advantages away. The power of the ruling family within Iberia was strengthened greatly, but Spain became a backwater.

Today, both Spain and Portugal (which had its own version of "The Inquisition" and "the Expulsion") are actively courting Jewish descendants of families expelled (and murdered, including being burned alive) as potential immigrants to the mother countries of their families.

Many attractive perks are being offered to these potential immigrants, and though these apply (as I understand) to these Iberian descendants worldwide, this recruiting effort is particularly being targeted towards Israelis (obviously: Israelis of Sephardic descent).

Both Spain and Portugal have made it very clear that they regret their history and the historical mistakes which were made back then, and as of the twenty-first century CE, they enthusiastically want their Jews back, in a serious effort to overcome their more recent centuries of backwater status.

Hate.

Imagine a World Without Hate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KyvlMJefR4

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a World Without Hate
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KyvlMJefR4

This is beautiful, Mike.

Thank you for posting this.

I thought the Romans killed Christ.

Judas kissed him.

The gospel account is not dependable history. Even if it were, identifying a person for the authorities is not the same thing as executing him. Even it were, the guilt incurred by one man in no way extends to an entire people.

Revisiting the gospels-as-history issue, it's useful to read them four books in their chronological order. What that reveals is that the guilt for Jesus's death changed over the decades. In the earliest gospel, it was the Romans who killed him and the Jewish role was minimal. That changed, however, over time: in the last gospel the Jews were the assassins and the Romans merely the instrument.

Why such a stark change? Because Paul initiated a separation of Christianity from Judaism, and the advocates of the transition wanted to draw a stark line between the two communities. So the Jews were demonized. The "history" was rewritten to produce the outcome the politicians wanted.

Not the first, not the last.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2018 09:00PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The gospel account is not dependable history.
> Even if it were, identifying a person for the
> authorities is not the same thing as executing
> him. Even it were, the guilt incurred by one man
> in no way extends to an entire people.

Absolutely agree. I see I may have been too brief. I didn't mean to indicate that it is my belief that because of Judas (or whoever), all Jews are complicit through the ages. I hope it didn't come across that way. I was referring to the fact that many people seem to feel that is a good enough reason or excuse for disliking Jewish people.

I hope it goes without saying that I don't fall into that group.

As an aside, and a totally different point, when I was a JW and attended their yearly conferences, they always put on a play, usually of Bible times. They had an elderly Jewish man do a lot of the narration. They were quite adept at the acting parts and had terrific costumes. The narrator had the most incredibly beautiful voice, with an accent I considered "Jewish" - sorry for my ignorance - I don't know which country he was from - I don't think it's called a Jewish accent but anyway, his was not North American. So that made the play seem so very authentic. Many of us took it to indicate how real to actual events the play was, as if that proved our theology or something. The naivete is stunning. Myself included. It wasn't just his accent, it was his deep, rich voice, and how much feeling he expressed and how loving he sounded (and dare I say, prophetic). So good I still remember the sound of it. And he made all the beliefs seem so real and the plays so memorable. It's amazing how little glue one needs sometimes to stick. Even when things weren't going well for me with the JWs I'd think "but that voice". Duh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2018 12:24AM by Nightingale.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even when things weren't going
> well for me with the JWs I'd think "but that
> voice". Duh.

This is so touchingly human, Nightingale!

:)

:)

"I hope it goes without saying that I don't fall into that group."

Absolutely. I merely wanted to spell out the logical fallacies in the argument you adumbrated.

Christians too easily forget that Christ himself was a hated Jew.

Anti-Semitism didn't begin or end with Jesus Christ. But it took it to a whole new elevation.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians too easily forget that Christ himself
> was a hated Jew.

Do they?

Some never realize.

Many do know. It kind of makes sense if you know the accounts of what went down.

Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice character, "Shylock" the moneylender, did lasting harm to the image of Jews.

As did the Mormon "Living Scriptures" cartoon videos' portrayal of Jewish antagonists: the worse the Jew --the bigger the nose. For that reason, my son quit his job there.

Even our Mormon Institute teacher who insisted, "Jews! They killed their God!"

I would say whites are suspicious of Jews because they have been the leaders of the Left, progressive movements, post modern thinking, revolutionaries, founders of communism. In america Jews are in great power as CEOs of major companies, and own many large companies, and are very wealthy.

People who are very powerful yet very small in number get suspicious.

It would be difficult to encapsulate every historical prejudice and error about Jews in more succinct form.

“I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”
― William Shakespeare