Seems like there are two general types of anti-Semitism. The underground network of Jewish bankers and media moguls who control the world-type of anti-Semitism, which I had kind of forgotten about until Seeker reminded me in a different thread, and the Christ-killer type of anti-Semitism fostered and encouraged by the Catholic and Orthodox churches and which subsequently carried over into Protestant thinking.

Of course, they are not mutually exclusive. Thing is I think I understand the first one. One of the greatest and most deeply rooted bullshit conspiracy theories around. Like most successful conspiracy theories it has to make sense on a certain level even if what it is based on is totally bogus. But the second anti-Semitism I don’t understand.

I may be totally wrong here, but wasn’t Christ’s death kind of essential in the great scheme of salvation and redemption? The blood sacrifice part of the deal? Didn’t he need to die in order to give humanity a chance to get right with God and be “saved”.

Seems to me that the Jews, in so far as they played a role in Christ’s death at all, performed an essential function and shouldn’t be condemned and persecuted for it. I mean, what if Christ hadn’t been killed? Would Christianity even exist today?

Well, first off, it is a bit ironic to blame "the Jews" for his death, considering that even the NT is quite clear he was put to death by the Romans and it even gives you the charge (political insurrection). However, the charge of "deicide" has been one levelled at the Jews for a long time, beginning with John Chrysostom and Augustine and others, and only being formally renounced by the Catholic Church in 1964.

The New Testament presents what I believe is a fictitious scene of Jews gathering as he is about to be executed, baying "let his blood be upon us and all our children". First off, I doubt any Jewish mob would ever clamor for anyone to be executed by the Romans. Second, I doubt any such nonsense was ever uttered. That is an invented part of the Gospels, created by Gentile Christians as they sought to fight "Judaizers" within the church in the early centuries.

There may have been members of the Jewish community who wanted his death; probably the upper echelon of the Sadducees, who were pro-Roman. I doubt there was any popular sentiment behind it.

However, that fictitious episode, often presented at the crescendo of medieval passion plays, frequently led to pogroms against Jewish communities. Mel Gibson knows this, and yet left that scene in his little movie.

Good questions Tyo.

Don't forget this still exists and is a serious problem today, and I'd say especially on the left. That's what the Walt/Melsheimer stuff is, that's what the "no dispute in the media" stuff is, that what "the candidates tow to AIPAC" stuff is, that what the "we're fighting in Iraq for Israel" stuff is.

Now you are sounding like Hagee. (whatever else he is, he is not anti-semitic). But in fact you are correct.

Theological anti-semitism (in Christian tradition) dates back to the first days of Christianity. If you think about it, its easy to understand why. Jesus' early followers were interested in creating a new religion, replacing the law and tradition of the Jews. To do that they had to make as many distinctions as possible.

Then look at the history. The Greeks and Romans, early promoters of Christianity, already had long histories of conquering the Jews and oppressing them...long before Jesus. Again we had several reasons working in conjunction.

In fact since Pope John II, the Catholics have officially moved away from the Jews killed Jesus stuff. And there are protestant churches (yes, like Hagee) who also recognize the fallacy of that reasoning.

Politics and religion often work together, so you will not see (as you point out) the issues in isolation.

Makes sense to me that the Romans executed Christ for being a pain in t. a. Colonial administrations were pretty much the same in Christ's time as they were 1,800 years later. And now for that matter. Also makes sense that there were certain elements among the Jews who were not sorry to see him silenced. And finally, to subsequently shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews made sense politically and in terms of religious differentiation as you guys say.

What I'm still not clear on is why the Romans or the Jews or anyone else should be assigned a burden of guilt or blame in the first place. Didn't whoever killed him simply perform the one action that was key to the whole program? Didn't Christ have to die? Or rather, be killed? And if he did have to be killed, someone had to do it. And to not have done it would have left us all up s. c. because his death was the key to our redemption. So why the anger at his executioners?

If there had been no execution the play would have ended with the second act and mankind would still be on the outs with God (in the Christian perspective anyway, although without the crucifixion there wouldn't be any Christians here today to hold that perspective). Or am I totally missing something?

Maybe you'd have to get an explaination from a Christian believer, but from the perspective of the Hebrew scriptures, the Messiah (whose requirement Jesus did not meet, but thats something else), no I don't believe he would have had to have died, been crucified, persecuted, re-risen or whatever. On the other hand lots of other nice things would have happened. First coming would have done it, wouldn't need a second.

Yeah, I'm hoping a Christian will help me out with this. BTW, you and Seeker are great sources for Jewish info and perspectives and I always learn a lot from you guys. Thanks!

honest question. in what way did he not meet the requirement?

He died.

According to Jewish scripture the Messiah must bring about the redemption of the Jews BEFORE he dies. According to Christians he brought about redemption after he died and rose again.

Stoon has one point. (Actually, I don'e know whether or not that is an issue, but he certainly did die before fufillng the promises made for a Messiah.) Here are a few others, and I'm no expert and not looking it up. He would have had to have been from the line of David, though his father. As the child of a 'virgin' (though many think its a mistranslation) he couldn't have been. He didn't redeem Israel from exile and foreign domination. Didn't cause the ingather of the Jews to Israel. Oppression still exists in the world, still have wars going on. As of yet, the world, is not united. He did not rebuild the Temple (in fact, the Second Temple was destroyded soon after his life.)

I'm not out to change the mind of anyone who does believe. So please don't argue. I'm just providing some answers. I have no problem with people who want to believe in the Christian religions (nor any other).

Here's my take on all this. Part of the reason that the Jewish banker nonsense is still going on is rooted in the fact that in early Christianity usury, or the charging of interest on loans of money, was not permitted. Chrsitians could lend money to other Christians but were not allowed to charge interest. There was no such restriction regarding borrowing money from Jews. So some Jews naturally gravitated to banking. The charging of interest on loans was one of the many things that brought about the Reformation. Rich Christians wanted to make money by loaning it out too! So Jews became bankers because it was a way for them to make a living in gentile Europe. The paying of interest never makes people happy, even when they need to borrow the money. The fact that they had to pay it to Jews deepened the already prevelant anti-semitism.

What you say makes sense. The Jews that demanded the execuution of Christ were merely doing their part in something that was pre-ordained. Trouble is, the Jews did not call for the execution of Christ. The powers that be executed Christ. Rome, and the Jewish Temple priests (which were appointed by Rome) executed him.

Antisemtism is a product of the seperation of Christianity from Judaism. The synoptic gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke were written circa 60-120 AD. This was during and after the Jewish uprising in 70 AD that finally saw the Romans destroy the Temple in Jerusalem and the killing of many Jews. The early Christians not only wanted to seperate from the Jews fro religious reasons, but they also wanted to show the Romans that they did not pose the same kind of threat that the Jewish zealots did. What better way than to blame the Jews themselves for the death of their 'god'? At that point in history, the early Christians were under suspicion as well as the Jews, for early Christianity was but a sect of Judaism. The 'powers that be' needed to know that not only were the Christians NOT Jews, but that the Christians considered Jews their enemy. The old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' ploy.

Again, in that section of the NT, Pontius Pilate supposedly "washes his hands" of the blood of Jesus, claiming that he does not want to execute him. This BTW, from a guy who was recalled as procurator for excessive cruelty and exiled to the boondocks of the Roman Empire later in life. If you want to know what kind of guy Pilate was, you can read in Josephus as to what he did to someone who was claiming to be the Messiah of the Samaritan people. He not only had him executed, but also crucified hundreds of his followers.

The Pilate of the Gospels is a fiction, too. IMHO, that whole section does a two-fer which early Gentile Christians needed to do in the early centuries; ingratiate themselves to the Roman Empire, and differentiate themselves from the Jews, so they shift the blame away from Rome and Pilate and try to make it look like the Jews "forced" him to do it. Yeah, right.

I have no doubt that Jesus made enemies of the Sadducees. However, I also believe he did not have problems with the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin. So the episodes showing him having arguments with the Pharisees are probably fictional, too, or at least misrepresent what I think was really going on; in Jesus' time, there were two Pharisaic schools, the more liberal one of Hillel and the more conservative one from Shammai. You can tell from Jesus' teachings he was probably part of the Hillel school. Whatever arguments he had were probably with the Shammai-ites. But he himself appears to have been a Pharisee. Of the two groups, the Sadducees were more pro-Roman, pro-occupation, pro-Hellenism, and pro-being the economic elite that benefited from working with the occupiers. The Pharisees were more popular with the poor and the common folk. Jesus' Jewish followers were known as the Ebionites, which comes from the Hebrew word Evyonim, "the Poor".



You've hit the crux moment of Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ, which many Christians refused to see.

According to Kaz., the Devil offered him a chance to evade his own crucifixion and live a normal human life, married with children by Mary Magdalene. But at the last moment, he realizes that doing so means there will be no salvation. So he returns to the cross.

There's one other hitch. For him to be the Messiah, he would have had to have been descended from King David.

The New Testament does present not one but two geneaologies that make that case. However, the accuracy of them is debatable. One of them, which seems to be based on the largely mythological conceit of using 14 generations between Abraham and David, and David and Jesus, is most definitely inaccurate. The other problem is Davidic descent has to go through the father. For him to be the Messiah, Joseph would have to be descended from David, and been his father.

"Moshiach" (Messiah) in Hebrew is an adjective that means "anointed". To be anointed with oil, you had to have the rightful descent for your position. There were two moshiachs - the High Priest, who had to be descended from Aaron and Zadok, and the King, who had to be descended from David. The problem in Jesus' time, and why people were waiting for "a" messiah (actually two), was that the Hasmoneans and then later the Herodians had usurped those positions from those of rightful descent.

What people were waiting for was a rightful Jewish king of the proper descent who would drive out the Roman Empire and restore the sovereignty of Israel.

"Messianic" Jews aside, most Jews feel Jesus did not achieve that... although later on Rabbi Akiva and many others felt another man by the name of Bar Kochba would fill the bill. Alas, he failed, too, although he did succeed in liberating Judaea from Rome for three years. We can find the coins he printed in his short-lived kingdom, and he made an abortive attempt to rebuild the Temple.

A few factoids, here, though, because you're dealing with a long-lived and perennial stereotype about Jews.

First, the Old Testament itself condemns usury. However, usury is defined as the charging of excessive interest on loans. Somehow, by the early Christian era, it became redefined as charging any interest on loans. The OT seems to take the rather more reasonable position that nobody would loan money if they didn't get anything in return for loaning it ... offering a loan is a service and the interest collected can be considered the service charge. However, just as it condemns people who use unfair weights and measures in transactions, it also condemns those who loan money at excessive or blood-sucking rates.

That redefinition of usury, for whatever reason, carried over to Islam as well. This is why probably the first bankers in Christendom were the Knights Templar... but that's a whole 'nother conspiracy ball o wax.

Anyway, so now you have Christians unable to loan money. They turn to the Jews as moneylenders. In many cases, Jews were forced into that position, because a) they were not allowed to join the trade guilds for other trade professions such as blacksmithing since the guilds required baptism and the Kings often made them an offer they couldn't refuse, i.e. "be my banker, and I'll protect you from pogroms". The point I'm making is the reason many Jews entered the banking profession was not out of greed or avarice, but because in medieval Europe, they had no choice.

The sad fact is the stereotype of Jews as greedy bankers gave Shakespeare his prototypical Shylock character, the guy who demands "his pound of flesh" when his clients no longer have any money, a stereotype Jews have been stuck with for centuries.

There is also a third type of 'antisemtism'. On another thread, now closed, it was applied to anybody that accused Israel of wrong doing.
Although the person initiating the thread made no reference to either religion or ethnicity, those that defended Isreal in that argument immediatly refered to any accusation against Israel as an attack on Jews and semites (defining semites as Jews only). It is not actually intended that argument against political and military actions by Israel be an attack on Judaism, obviously. But, that obvious statement is disregarded by defenders of Israel when they accuse anybody in disagreement with the policies of Israel of anti-semitism. It is a point that I find particularly obnoxious, as Israel like to advertise itself as having equality among all religions. Like most advertisments it is a bald faced lie.

As for your conversation about the nature and purpose of the life of Jesus....it is a spiritual salvation, o.k.
Compare it to a rite performed by certain priests at somebodies death. The priest will take upon himself the sins of the deceased so that they may go on to the next world. In the case of Jesus, he performed this rite, not only for Isreal, but for all humanity, at the cost of his own life...and along with his moral teachings...and implanting his spirit within us...he has earned the esteem of all men.

I suggest you read that thread again. I believe you misread it.

The mods removed the blatant antisemitic remarks of the OP of the thread, so you're not getting the whole picture either.

No, please read it again.



That is not true. I did point out that there are certain forms of reference to Israel that are anti-Semitic. I did not say all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
BTW, for the 800th time, it was not Jews themselves who coined the term anti-Semitism, to refer to Jews only. Wilhelm Marr, who probably would also have hated Arabs also, had he known many, coined the word.
I agree a person who hates Arabs could also be called an anti-Semite. In fact, most anti-Semites probably hate both, even if they are willing to make short-term alliances with Arabs because they hate Jews more.



In point of fact, it is Israeli law that all religious sites are controlled by custodians of that religious faith. So Muslim sites are under Muslim control, Christian churches likewise, and even so for Bahais or Druze. Israel proclaims religious freedom as part of its basic law.



I understand that it is how you see it from the viewpoint of your faith.

I only explain why it is that most (95%, other than "Messianic") Jews do not view Jesus as the Messiah.

Unfortunately, this is a clear case where it is impossible to define what faith A does or doesn't believe without contradicting what faith B does.

I suppose I would leave it at that.

Where the term "anti-Semitism" comes from.

http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_w...ntisemitism.cfm

Wilhelm Marr coined the term “anti-Semitism” in 1879 in his The Victory of the Jews over the Germans, which appeared in 12 editions in one year. His publication blamed the Jews for threatening to dominate the German economy and destroy the greatness of Germany. Marr viewed Jews as inherently evil; he did not believe that the evil of Jews would ever change.

According to Marr, the only solution was for Jews to be driven away from German society. Marr echoed views of another writer of his era who expressed racial antisemitism in 1876:

Even the most honorable Jews is under the inescapable influence of his blood, carrier of a semitic morality, totally opposed to Germanic values. . . aimed at the destruction and burial of German values and traditions. . . . Before the vote for anyone, first ask about his blood and worry later about his political opinions.

Image: Cover of Wilhelm Marr's book, The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism.

Although Marr warned that Germans would become subservient to the Jews, he urged Germans not to submit to Jews and to boycott their businesses.

[snip]

The term was not coined by Jews; it was coined by Jew haters.

But they left the only slightly less blant ones.

Speaking as the Mod who stripped this out and closed the thread, I'm eager to reply.
Stoon is correct. There were antisemitic comments on the thread which just showed it was going down for the count. The rules state:
Racist, sexist, Anti-Semitic remarks, or hate speech will not be allowed.
This list is not inclusive, IMHO. It merely defines a direction of what is allowable and not allowable.

Jewishness, being an inseparable part of European culture, brings forth many different facets for conversation. These elements differ in the degree of sensitivity and caution.

If one uses Jew as a descriptor of a a religiously oppressed minority, especially one that underwent an attempted extermination a half-century ago - well, whatever category that got people into the camps, is a category about which I tread with great caution. Note that it was not only Jews killed off in the camps, but Gypsies and homosexuals, as well. We do not see a lot of anti-Gypsy hatred here on the board - that sort of prejudice is pretty European - but we DO see anti-homosexual bashing here, and when I see it, I think of the Pink Triangles, and tend to deal with such nonsense rather strongly.

If one uses Jew as a descriptor of one who believes in a certain monotheistic faith, there is a lot more latitude for criticism, comparable to criticism of Christianity here on the board. I am as watchful for anti-muslim bashing under the guise of religious criticism, as I am for antisemitism under the guise if religious discussion. But Judaism-as-religion can certainly be critiqued.

Zionism, the foundation of Israel, and the Israeli/Palestinian matter is wide-open for discussion, as it is only a matter in international politics. One will likely hear the full gamut of opinions from Israeli citizens themselves, Jew, Christian and Muslim. Harsh criticism - or warm support - of Israel here on the board is merely a political perspective.

The problem comes when people, true to human nature, blur things together. Allegations of an international financial conspiracy are fine for discussion here. Allegation of an international Jewish financial conspiracy may raise an eyebrow, although there has been plenty of discussion how J.P. Morgan arose as an American arm of the Rothchilds of Europe. One can slide further and further down the anti-Semitic slippery slope, and get into all sorts of racist nonsense, which is clearly bannable.

I hope that these thoughts are helpful. The part that drew my attention to a now-removed post stated that all Jews would do such-and-such a thing to benefit Israel at the expense of the United States. When one draws such lines, one uses the same measure that put people into the camps. One cannot trust a Jew, implied the poster. Such threads cannot produce anything further of value.

Fight on about Israel all you want, freely, without concern. But the lines are drawn approximately regarding offensive discussion on the board. And I consider the concept of religious IslamoFascism to be equally noxious.

With due respect, M. Mod, I appreciate your effort and the difficult position you are in.

I am in complete agreement that Israel and its policies, religion, etc. is completely fair game. In fact I would have recommended that you leave up the offending remarks as well. You have never seen me ask for removal of anyone’s comments here.

But.

Cowboy (in this context you become a regular poster ) you present one of the difficulties I see when people talk about Jews and Israel. First off, you are incorrect regarding you comment about Jews and European culture. Yes that is a sub segment of Jewish culture, but maybe you are also aware of Jews from Arab countries, Jews from Africa and from South America. These are smaller portions in the US, but in Israel they represent significant populations. The concept/impression of Jews as European colonizers is part of a campaign, but its false.

Second, it points out that many people, particularly on the left, like Jews -- as an oppressed minority. When Jews call for self determination that's another thing. My guess is that most Jews don't want to be an oppressed minority. Nor does anyone else.

Zionism is a fair topic for discussion, but you cannot separate it from Judaism. You may not like it, but the land of Israel is central to Judaism. Now you can so, so what? Don't act on that aspect (for any number of reasons, religious, political, social, etc.). Again, fair enough, but don't expect those of us who support Jewish self determination and rights to sit quietly and not challenge other perspectives. (I don't think you expect that Cowboy)

But recognize that ant-Semitism today does sometimes take the form of anti-Zionism. You might, if you are interested, take a look at the link from Dissent Magazine I posted in the other thread. It makes an argument as to where one can see the similarities. I also posted a segment.

So if you talk about Zionists using classic anti-Semitic themes, you can expect some will question. (BTW, while I do believe some people here may be, I don't tend to accuse anyone of that. Sometimes they just don't know or realize. Even when they do, it tends to shut down conversation.

So Cowboy, again. Thanks for your effort and understanding in difficult task.

As a matter of record I am decended from a family that formerly used the surname Jacobson until they found it expediant to immigrate to America and alter their name to something more anglo sounding. Nevertheless, they didn't feel obliged to follow judeaism or any other religion they didn't believe in. It's a free country.... I should feel free to critisize Isreal without being called an anti-semite. And if either an Islamic state or Christian state, or ideologies, support blatant murderous fascism, I should be free to call it what it is, without walking over politically correct eggshells.

It is also my opinion that the Holocaust is much WORSE than reported. It is in fact has been a five hundred year inquisition against indigenous peoples. Including: Jews, Gypsies, Orthodox Christians, Native Americans, Africans of all faiths, Muslims, etc.
Anti-Semitism is just one part of the problem.

Is there anyone here who diasgrees with this post of yours?

yepp-er! When I'm on a thread, I take off the Mod hat as much as I can...
Not everybody is Ashkenazim. I don't want to slight the Sephardim, and New Mexico is colonized by a few crypto-Jewish families - some of whom have even forgotten entirely why they follow these family traditions - others still know they are Jewish, and there are fragments of Ladino left out here. Great anthropology here in NM



It's one of the eternal problems in argument - splitting vs. lumping. I split hairs to try to piece out what is particularly concerning. I know that most Zionists are Jewish (!) but also around the turn of the century, many Zionists were Socialists. It's tricky now talking about the link between Zionism and Socialism - that's sorta scattered as a tie. See what I'm saying?


Again, welcome. It's just like officiating a game. Don't want to interfere with the flow of play, but NO BITING!

The mods removed the blatant antisemitic remarks of the OP of the thread, so you're not getting the whole picture either.


Always tough - you want to leave in enough evidence that the thread's gone sour - but not so much to be offensive. Hard call, that.

Not at all an unusual tie. Socialism is an economic system, Zionism is a form of nationalism. Occurs through the world. In fact most of the founding fathers/mothers of Israel were socialists (as you probably know). Until recent years, it had one of the most even distributions of wealth in the world (not true any longer).

Holy poop I've been screaming this from the rooftops for years, but not to my Christian friends.

Absolutely. It is a totally free country, far be it from me for people to convert to any religion they feel like. That said, I find it odd they not only feel the need to do this (which is fine), but feel the need to hide any trace of "Jewishness" by also changing their name.... yes? As if they wanted to hide the shame of having a Jewish last name?

I'm not picking on any of your ancestors ... it is not an uncommon story. You know the authors of the famous Book of Lists?



They're all from the same family. The "Wallaces" are actually "Wallechinskys" who dropped the "insky" part because it sounded too Jewish.

The actor Hal Linden was originally Harold Lipshitz. Sounded too Jewish, so he changed his name.

Tony Curtis? Originally Bernie Schwartz.

Kirk Douglas? Izzy Demsky.

Again, it's a free country. I can't stop anybody from changing their name, either. I wouldn't even want to try. I pity them for doing it out of self hatred and being ashamed of who they are.

That self hatred is not particular to Jews; it is why many Jewish people get nose jobs,
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_week...content_id=2142

but it's also why Chinese-Americans like Connie Chung get their eyes "fixed", why black people like Malcolm Little (later X) try to straighten their hair with products that burn their scalp, why gay people try to hide in the closet, why Brazilians try to "improve their race" by "marrying up" (someone lighter skinned), and why Native Americans try to "become white".

Of course, let us all be free. But me, I hope for the day that when we choose to change ourselves, it's not because of shame, a shame born of internalizing the hatred of others.

As for me, I am unapologetically Jewish, and to quote my good friend Carmenjonze, if people can't deal with it, FUCK THEM, I am never going to be apologize for who I am.



No one here disagrees. I wonder how long this point will need to be made.

Yes, Cowboy, this is the point I've made over and over again. Zionism, at least the Labor variant of it, is a Left Wing movement.

The Labor party of Israel is a member of the Socialist International.

The Soviet Union, at least initially, supported Israel probably more strongly than the U.S., in 1948. Most of the weapons used in the '48 war of independence came from the Soviet satellite state of Czechoslovakia. Fact.

Israel is home to the kibbutz, one of the most successful experiments in cooperative, communitarian socialist living. Where even children are raised collectively by the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

David Ben-Gurion's entry into Zionism came through the Socialist Zionist group, Poalei Zion, "Workers of Zion".

One of the building blocs of Israel was the Histadrut, the Federation of Worker's Unions. It was one of the strongest, best-organized labor movements in the world.

Do you feel it is anti-Semitic to NOT support Israel?

I do not understand this question. I don't.

First I need an operational definition of "support".

I expect no one, Jewish or not, Zionist or not, American or not, Israeli or not, to uncritically support everything Israel does. No one should, "my country right or wrong" is a stupid idea, it is jingoism, not nationalism.

Israel can and should be criticized. I would even argue it must be. For the same reasons that dissent and criticism are so important to keep the U.S. on the right path, also.

Where I agree with Viewer is:

a) it should be held to the same standard as other nations. Being especially critical of Israel when other nations around it are doing far worse things may not be anti-Semitism, but I believe it is myopia and misfocus.
there are people who ARE anti-Semites who HIDE behind anti-Zionism because they know it is more politically "safe" to criticize "Zionists" than it is to criticize "Jews".

I'll rephrase...

Do you feel it is anti-Semitic for a non-Jewish person to NOT support the US government's protection of Israel regarding the Gaza Strip?

If you're asking what I think is the more direct question, "is it anti-Semitic to question Israel's policies in Gaza," then the answer is no.

But why not ask the more general question, "is it anti-Semitic to question Israel's policies", then the answer is, of course not. I do it all the time. I do not agree with the collective punishment policy against Gaza, I was against the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, I do not agree with continuing aid and protection to the illegal settlements, I do not believe in rocket and gunship attacks that are too careless with regard to loss of civilian life, I do not agree with illegal home demolitions, and I do not frankly think the West Bank occupation should continue.

Among other things. (I know Viewer disagrees with me on some of these points.)

Why should it be? Opposition/Left Parties in Israel themselves question Israeli policy all the time, let alone Jewish Zionist critics in the U.S. like Michael Lerner, and I do not believe they are anti-Semitic.

I certainly agree with you on this point, however.

You left out those who claim not to be anti-semitic but just substitute "zionist" or "Israel" for "Jews" in their anti-semitic smears.

"zionists control the world"
"Israel controls the world"

That kind of ignorant claptrap.

My understanding is that since the Church likes to claim decent from the Roman empire, Church leaders deliberately started the lies about Jews killing Jesus, because the alternative was to claim decent from the actual killers.

this is where it gets complicated for me. I don't come from a Christian background or one in which I came into contact with many Jewish people or with Jewish culture. And my history of the Middle East and Israel and Zionism kind of sucks too. Trying to get educated and really appreciate all the input. And not just the facts but the feelings and motivations.

Some more:

John Garfield = Jules Garfinkle

The Warner Bros = Thought to have last name either Woerner or Varna

Edward G Robinson = Emanuel Goldberg

Judy Holliday = Judith Tuvim

Piper Laurie (of Carrie fame) = Rosetta Jacobs

Geddy Lee = Gary Weinraub

Oh, and it's often assumed Ethel Merman changed her name for the same reason. But she's not Jewish. Last name was Zimmerman.

Thing is, talk to them long enough and INVARIABLY "Zionists" and "Israel" turns into The Jews™ this and The Jews™ that.

I've never seen it fail.

You've noticed that too.

I think the answers are the same as "what's a Zionist".

Hagee is one of the most raging anti-Semites I've ever read or heard of. And that's saying a lot.

His feeling is that Hitler was sent by God as prophesied.



And nobody wants to talk about the planned result of the "end times" -- All persons must bow to baby Jesus, with a particular eyes toward Jewish people, whether ethnic, religious, cultural or some combination of all three.

Take it from a former rightwing Christian -- Hagee is no friend of Israel or Jewish people, no matter how loud he protests to the contrary. NO armageddon christian is.



This is one reason I try to get specific -- what you're talking about in my mind is anti-Judaism, which of course is directly linked to anti-Semitism but usually takes the form of some kind of supersessionism (which Hagee nominally rejects but then he thinks Hitler was sent by God...)

why would you think that the jews who fought and died and lived by the torah would be cool with a guy commiting the worst kind of blasphemy? the romans took the power of capital punishment away from the sanhedrin, they saw this guy upsetting their shrinking sphere of influence and commiting severe blasphemy and you doubt that orthodox jews would have a problem with this? Orthodox jews have trouble typing the word God, and you doubt 1st century jews gave any guff about a guy saying He's the Son of God in their most Holy temple? what do you base this on?

I'll let Seeker, who is much more eloquent then myself, respond to your statement. I just wanted to clarify one thing. It's not only the Orthodox who wont type G-d. I'm Conservative and you'll NEVER catch me writing the word out.

This is kind of a weird statement.

Please tell me you don't buy the "Jews killed Jesus" canard?

Can I be honest here? I don't care if my ancestors did kill the guy. I don't see how decendants of an event that happened about 1970 years ago can be blamed for it. I don't blame Bush for having ancestors that are Nazis, and that was a hell of a lot more recent!

... OK... see again, this brings us into difficult territory, as I don't want to step on anybody's toes. However, what a faith believes is subject to critical and historical inquiry.

... did he himself ever claim to be G-d or the Son of G-d? Or was that something put in his mouth by later folk? It is possible he might have used the terms "Son of G-d" or "Son of Man" in the same way the Psalmist and others did ... as a way of indicating his "adoption" as an adoptive Son by the holy Father?

... the other factor is, blasphemy was not a capital crime.

... we see him battling often with the Sadducees and the Pharisees (the Pharisees ran the Sanhedrin, the Sadducee priesthood ran the Temple) in the Gospels. The conflict with the Sadducees is understandable. He seems to have been very critical of the way they were sucking up to the Romans and felt they had profaned the Temple by allowing moneychangers in it. See, people don't get the attack on the moneychangers. He wasn't criticizing Jewish greed or anybody else's for "cheating" people at the changing table. The moneychangers were in the Temple so that Jews could exchange their shekels for Roman coins so that they could make an offering for the Roman Emperor. This was a heated controversy in his time and many people feel Jews should not be paying tribute to the Emperor. This is exactly the context of why he (allegedly) answered earlier, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." they were basically asking him if it was OK to pay the temple tax that went to the Roman emperor, and he (supposedly) said "don't fight it". However, the later assault on the moneychangers would suggest he either changed his mind, or maybe, just maybe, had always been against it.

... however was he really anti Pharisee? The problem is there were two schools of Pharisaism at his time, the more liberal Hillel school, and the more conservative Shammai school. If you look at Jesus' words and teachings, he seems to have been a Hillelist Pharisee! Therefore, it is possible he battled with the other Shammaite school, but that doesn't mean he had enmity with the Pharisees in general.

... the bottom line is he seems to have been anti-Roman and pro-populist/the poor, and the main accusation against the Sadducees at the time was that they had become a corrupt and rich elite by colluding with the Roman rulers. Thus, he likely would have been aligned with the (Hillel) Pharisees and against the Sadducees. The New Testament obscures this reality by making it appear he was hostile to both groups as a whole.

... one final problem ... the Gospel story of him being tried by the Sanhedrin and then turned over for execution by the Romans is a fiction. Yes, the Sanhedrin could execute you, for horrific religious crimes. If they wanted to, they would do it by stoning you. However, they never ever turned people found guilty over to the Romans for execution. The only people Roman procurators executed were political troublemakers ... Zealots, bandits ("lestai"), insurrectionists, and other insurgents. If Jesus was killed by the Romans ... it was for political insurrection, not religious blasphemy against Jewish teachings.

Problems with the accounts of Jesus' "trial" by the Sanhedrin in the Gospels...
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sanhedrin.html

I think he was never tried by the Sanhedrin.
I think he was tried by the Romans, executed by the Romans (just like John the Baptist BTW), and Pontius Pilate did not feel one single shred of guilt.
I believe whatever Jewish mob was there that day begged for him to be released, not executed.

Oh BTW one other little factoid ... the other supposed detail is this "mob" was offered another person to be released in Jesus' place, a guy named Barabbas. The Gospels present the story in typical fashion; the ever merciful Pilate supposedly allows the crowd to choose whether they want Jesus released or Barabbas, a bandit and murderer. And of course, they choose Barabbas. (Yet, if they had been baying for Jesus' death earlier, why would he even bother offering them a choice?) Yet Barabbas means "son of the father". And we are told explicitly his name was Jesus Barabbas. "Son of Jesus"? The story might be fiction, as it was not custom for the Romans to release prisoners this way. Yet some scholars think the crowd was offered the choice of the father or the son to be released, and since he was the younger man with more of his life ahead, they chose the son. And if Barabbas was a Zealot/insurrectionist (exactly the kind of person the Romans derided as bandits and thieves)... what did that make his da?

Why exactly is he travelling around with two Zealots in his entourage? Simon Zelotes = Simon the Zealot. Judas Iscariot = Judas the Sicarii. Sicarii = "dagger men", another name for Zealot.

I can imagine the later editors of the Gospels, wanting to ingratiate themselves with Rome, and shift blame to the Jews for his death, tinkering with, or obscuring, little details like this.

My 2¢ worth - I know the Catholic Church recognized the Covenant as unbroken and salvific, which means that they understand that Jews get into Heaven, because they're Family with the Owner.

The situation changed with Nostra Aetate in 1965. The Church formally absolved the Jews of deicide and said the covenant was not superseded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_Aetate

Problem is, the "Traditionalist" faction within the Church reject all Vatican II reforms of John 23 ... such as the non-Tridentine Mass, and this edict... claiming they were the work of Freemasons and other liberal "infiltrators" of the Church.

And, Mel Gibson and his "da" belong to that faction.

But some will on a computer screen since it is not permenant anyway.

As Sinister says, Standard Jewish Disclaimer.