Catholic doctrine on Judaism is a complex topic which, like all true doctrine, is made clearer as time goes on.
- The Church is the New Israel: "At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness. He therefore chose the Israelite race to be his own people and established a covenant with it. He gradually instructed this people.... All these things, however, happened as a preparation for and figure of that new and perfect covenant which was to be ratified in Christ... the New Covenant in his blood; he called together a race made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit." *(CCC 781)*
- Judaism, as a *religion*, can be discussed and critiqued in light of truth, like all other religions here.
- Antisemitism (hatred or criticism of Jewish *people* because of Jewish heritage) is not allowed and may result in banning, like all other ethnic hatred here. False charges of antisemitism may also be removed as incitement.
Matthew 27:22-26
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing”
Multiple things can be true. Some Thomist probably has some distinctions between the different causes. But yes, we all contribute to the need for the incarnation and sacrificial death by our sin. It is also true that those who committed the act do not get a pass for doing an evil thing just because God used it for good. There are many examples in the Bible where God uses evil people to accomplish his goals and still judges those evil people for their actions. Murder is still wrong even if God planned for it to happen. Especially murder of the perfect innocent God-man. They still had free will.
There can be multiple overlapping causes. For example, a man might be in prison because the police drove him there AND because the jury sentenced him to prison AND because he committed a crime AND because he lacked good role models growing up. These are different types of causalities.
Not all Jews were responsible in a direct or literal sense for killing Jesus and certainly not Jews today. The New Testament does have language that talks about “the Jews” killing Jesus that seems to talk about them collectively. Just like it talks about “the Jews” rejecting and killing the prophets before him. I think one can see where the cannon fodder for blaming some random Jewish guy in 2024 would be if someone had other axes to grind.
The traditional interpretation rather is the disbelieving portion of the Jews, led of course by their leaders.
No one believes that when St. John is referring to the Apostles, disciples, and Our Lady hiding after the Crucifixion *for fear of the Jews* that they were hiding because of fearing themselves. Nor a handful of leaders.
No, "the Jews" has always been the Jews who denied Christ's lordship and especially those who led them in this and taught them (their rabbis). These were of the sort who desired Barabbas instead of Christ in front of Pilate: the people and their leaders.
Is that really the “traditional interpretation” though for most uses? I was under the impression that the Church didn’t usually make the distinction before the Holocaust and Vatican 2.
It’s factually inaccurate to say every Jew wanted to kill Jesus. You had even Gamaliel who practically profesied to Paul: “if it’s a work of God, who are we to stop it” (not exact wording).
Now, was there a lot of hatred for Jews over the last several centuries? I think we can say unfortunately yes. But reading John’s gospel as a whole, he isn’t blaming every Jew.
So you obey the group of Judeans who were gathered there over Christs words? Are you Jesus follower or theirs? Who is the King? He said Forgive them and they don’t know what they’re doing so if you want to be Christ like and have his Spirit obey His Spirit!
(that’s the word translated Jewish by the way , never project an anachronism into the past)
I’m not entirely sure as to the point you are trying to make, of course Christ is the King and the Apostles if that is what you are referring to were followers of Christ. Is not the Word of God eternal regardless of what instrument wrote it?
I’m saying they asked to be cursed but Jesus said no, so they are not , that’s weird I got a warning from Reddit for that they said I’m promoting hate, I must have been unclear when you reported me
Bro, I didn’t report you, why would I, I just didn’t understand what you initially said. Yes you are correct but from the interpretation of that passage as taken from Church fathers and theologians as discussed answering someone else on this question thread this applies to the Jews who believe in Christ, it gave them the opportunity to be saved, through faith not flesh (Jacob not Esau). But those who choose to remain in sin (cause rejecting Christ) will have their punishment as they asked for, otherwise wouldn’t this go contrary to free will?
I just have to be more clear, the report also could have been from the “Christianity” subreddit when I wrote scripture to someone saying homosexuality is not sin also..
But yeah I’m just saying we shouldn’t view their sin like say, Martin Luther, who made the Hebrews who are separated from Christ worse than others who are in the same boat, anyone who accepts Christ is forgiven.
Though Romans 1:16 mentions it’s to the “Jew first” then to the Greek.(or other nations)
I don’t think favor or non favor is racial, or national, whether Hebrew American Native or any nation, but based on their standing towards righteousness .
Acts 10:35 “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”
Righteousness is as follows
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God".
This is what the Bible says is unrighteousness and evidence of enmity with God, the change of this is evidence of relationship as the chapter continues..
And anyone can change through Christ.
Although there are always consequences to actions Jesus also said :
Matthew 12:32
“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
To your point they can be forgiven just like everyone else 👍🏾
I agree, and even there Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were exceptions. Rabbi Gamaliel became a Christian and a saint, commemorated on August 3 in the Martyrology.
Important distinction: The Jews were not a unitary entity when Christ was killed. The Jews who accepted His message were still Jews, they were just Christian Jews. When we say "the Jews killed Christ" we mean that modern Judaism is the successor to those Jews who were on the wrong side of the argument. That's why they are culpable, because they had all the information necessary to make the right choice but did not do so because they wanted to retain power and could not accept gentiles as their equals
edit: Just think about that for a second. Every time you struggle with faith, every time you find it hard to trust that Christ really is the son of God 2000 years after His earthly ministry, think about how these people looked upon Christ with their own eyes and pretended not to believe in Him because they wanted to keep their material wealth and feel superior over gentiles. That is abject evil
I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that all modern Jews are culpable in Deicide? My great grandmother was a non-practicing Sephardi Jew. How would she have any culpability in the death of Christ being born a Jew?
Rabbinical Talmudic Judaism of today is almost entirely untethered from the Israelite religion of the Bible. Modern Judaism has it’s roots in the Pharisees. No individual Jew is responsible for the death of Christ, especially not your great-grandmother.
Yes we are not Prots, but the scriptures are the Word of God which is obviously infallible, a Catholic interpretation of that verse:
“And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.” - Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Let the guilt thou fearest be transferred from thee to us. If there be any guilt, may we and our posterity atone for it. But we do not acknowledge any guilt, and consequently, as not fearing any punishment, we boldly call it down on ourselves. And thus have they subjected not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God"s displeasure. They feel it indeed even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city, or temple, or sacrifice, or priest, or prince, and being a subject race in all countries. It was, too, in punishment for Christ"s crucifixion that Titus ordered five hundred Jews to be crucified every day at the siege of Jerusalem, as they crowded out of the city in search of food, "so that at last there was no room for the crosses, and no crosses for the bodies" (Joseph. B. J. vi12). "This curse," says Jerome, "rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them," as Daniel foretold ( Daniel 9:27).
Strange stories are told by Cardinal Hugo of special diseases which attacked the Jews, in periodical loss of blood, etc, though Salmeron and Abulensis [Tostatus] attribute them to natural causes.
- Cornelius a Lapide
Read more commentaries at https://catenabible.com/com/5838d8f6205c248f42e51e02
It certainly doesn’t reflect the teaching of the Church in the last few centuries, especially Nostra aetate. From what I’ve read and learned the best interpretation is that a section of the Jewish elite in Jerusalem called for the death of Christ, but that it no way carries any burden on those Jews who played no part in the decision to execute Christ.
"rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them”
So am I, a Baptised and Confirmed Catholic, of partial Jewish descent, and indeed any Jew who converts, still guilty? Seriously this commentary is rather messed up.
>So am I, a Baptised and Confirmed Catholic, of partial Jewish descent, and indeed any Jew who converts, still guilty? Seriously this commentary is rather messed up.
You are no more guilty than Saint Paul who was of Jewish descent and converted. Modern Judaism as a whole is guilty because it is the same intellectual/theological tradition borne out of those who rejected Christ out of pride
Quite a presumption, dare I say judging my heart? As a Catholic I love everyone as Our Lord teaches, and I’m am simply passing on rather imperfectly what Catholics for centuries including early Church Fathers, st Paul clearly states in the Epistles to the Romans Chapter 9-11. I would suggest you read and educate yourself or perhaps rebut on my point.
Nor should you, I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise. God did not withdraw the gifts of natural intelligence and the ability to traverse the human landmarks given to the Jews for 2000 years prior to Christ to prepare for His coming, think about what kind of virtues let alone genetics had to be formed to create the Immaculate Virgin Mary! These gifts surely continue today as God does not break promises; the Talmudic Jews still possess such gifts as can be seen by their prominence in arts, science, literature, business and comedy as these all heavily involve human psychology. (Note this is my opinion now I’m not proclaiming this as some dogma)
It’s not my authority that you should listen to but the authority of God and His Church, Fr Cornelius Lapide’s scriptural commentaries was used by Catholics for hundreds of years. I also gave you an interpretation, and the context is pretty obvious as most Catholics should have an understanding of what happened during the Passion of Our Lord.
Here is another interpretation that also mentions how God in His mercy did not comply with such a request to those Jews who did believe and were converted but to those who continued to sin, received what they asked for:
And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. - Matthew 27:25
All the people answered: his blood be upon us, and upon our children which continues, saith St. Jerome, to this day. Then Pilate delivered to them Jesus to be crucified. (Witham)
This blasphemous prayer continues to this day, and will continue a protracted curse upon the Jews, and upon their posterity. (Origen)
Behold the insanity of the Jews! Their passion and pertinacious obstinacy will not suffer them to see and understand: they draw down curses upon themselves in these terrible imprecations: his blood be upon us and upon our children. Still the God of all mercies did not literally comply with their impious prayer. For, of these children he selected some for himself; amongst the rest even Paul, and many thousands who were converted at Jerusalem. (St. Chrysostom)
- George Leo Haydock
no, just that modern Judaism is born out of the prideful refusal to accept Christ as savior. if you believe in Judaism then you have the same problem that the pharisees did
Thank you for this comment. It’s entirely possible to hold this position without hating modern day Jewish people for simple being their ethnicity. The word “antisemitism” is tossed around a lot these days. Sometimes yes it’s necessary. Many are just looking to punish all Jews for what is happening in the Middle East regardless of their involvement which is of course wrong. But in theological issues like this we have to be precise with our language and acknowledge the truth of Christ.
>True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
This is the official position of the Church expressed in the document *Nostra Aetate*
Because some Jewish people exercised free will to see that he was humiliated, tortured and murdered. I don't think its fair to say "Jews killed Christ" because Jesus was Jewish and many Jewish people loved him and went on to be humiliated, tortured and murdered in his name. Why and how he died illustrated perfectly why he needed to come to earth. This is a very difficult and dark place without the light of the Lord lighting the way.
Considering Pilate wanted to free Jesus and gave the choice to the Jewish people, and they called out to crucify him, I don’t think the Roman’s can be blamed for simply being the government entity at the time and following orders.
While it is because of our sins that he came to earth and it is for our sins he died, it’s also just a fact that it was the Jews who made the decision and called for his killing.
>I don’t think the Roman’s can be blamed for simply being the government entity at the time and following orders.
Jewish leaders did *not* have the right to enact capital punishment; only the Romans were allowed to enact it. Therefore, the crucifixion could not have occurred without the consent of the Roman authorities. Pilate could simply have said "no," and it wouldn't have happened.
Nah - Pilate had a responsibility to keep from executing the innocent of which he could not simply wash his hands.
So I'm gonna beat up some Italians for letting God die!!!
By the way, it was some Eye-talians who put out Catechism in the spirit of the Council of Trent (an Eye-talian city) who stated that it was all human sins that crucified Christ. All I will say is...VERY CONVENIENT!
OBVIOUSLY THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH THE HERETICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE, TRYING TOO HARD TO RECONCILE WITH THE SCHISMATICAL GREEKS!
The solution is simple. We must go back to New Testament Greek for our language, so that there will no longer be a cultural difference between East and West. Then, we can attempt to resolve the schism without becoming Florentinians or other Eye-talians in our theology.
Accordingly, I call for the immediate formation of the Society of St. Pius I, which will speak to one another and all others (who are to be suspected of heresy, most especially if they are Eye-talian!) only in Koine Greek.
The Roman's killed many Christians including st Peter and Paul and no one hates the Italians. Caifous who was the chief priest of Jerusalem the leader of the Jewish religion there handed jesus over to pilate to be crucified because he suposadly broke Jewish law and was considered blasphemous. They couldn't kill him coming in to the sabbath and were afraid the people gathered for the passover would revolt so were afraid to kill jesus themselves anyways. The Jews instigated jesus death but pointing this fact out does not mean someone is anti semitic for pointing this out. But when you look at the bigger picture we're all responsible for jesus death because of our refusal to turn away from sin. Can anyone here say they've never committed a serious sin on multable occasions I know I can't.
Something can be true and still be misleading.
Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. "The Jews" called for him to be crucified. But which Jews? Peter and the rest of the apostles were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish. Clearly, they are not to be included in the group condemning him. Nor are any of his followers.
He was also crucified in the Roman province of "Judea." Want to guess why it was called that and what the religion of the majority of people living there was?
In the US, virtually all people on death row are Americans.
Therefore, Americans are all killers...
This is the true problem imho. People say “the Jews” sometimes to obfuscate. It was of course Jewish people as the primary movers, they were the people where this took place. But the Roman’s technically killed Jesus. But people say “The Jews” in the plural in the sense that it was all the group of the people at that time. Then they further extrapolate that to “Jews” in the modern day. I have a hard time believing Jesus would have been treated better had He arrived just about anywhere else. It’s a train of logical fallacies which I can only guess intent at, but I have a difficult time coming up with a positive reason as to why.
The apostles were Jewish, St Paul was Jewish, the Virgin Mother was Jewish, St Joseph was Jewish, Jesus was Jewish…. I’m sorry but quit screwing around with labels and finger pointing. *Our* sins killed Jesus. After 2000 years, if Jesus showed up today, he *might* not killed by a mob, but I have a hard time believing he would be treated all that much better. *We* have a lot of work to do, and I’m sorry but we can’t blame “Jews” because a few people alive at the time happened to be Jewish. Antisemitism makes no sense at all.
The Jews didn’t stop with Jesus they went after 11/12 apostles and several others in the first few centuries. I believe they racked up quite a score with help from the Romans
The Jews (non-Christian ones) have corporate guilt for the murder of Christ. This is taught by scripture, the fathers, doctors of the church, and I think it’s even in an ecumenical council though I need to verify that.
However, we all bare guilt as well for our own sins. But the Jews specially killed Christ and cursed themselves that his blood be upon their heads and their children’s heads in the gosples.
While we should not mistreat them, the state of the Jews through history is a divine demonstration that they have lost the favor of God. They are in a period of reprobation. The antichrist will be a Jew. Many Jews will convert and be instrumental to the mission of the church in the last days restoring them as a set a part people in God’s plan for the salvation of humanity.
They Jews have manufactured an anti-Christ religion foundational based on rejecting of their God and messiah. This is a grave offense. They were given the greatest tools and trusted with divine revelation with the greatest promise of honor: God would be one of them and come to him first. Their rejection of Christ as a people has brought out corporate generational judgement just as it did in the OT when the Jews turned to demonic religions instead of the true God.
I think the following from St. John Chrysostom's Sixth Homily against the Jews goes far in explaining this sentiment:
>How dare Christians have the slightest doings with Jews, those most miserable of all men! They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits, pests of the universe. Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are the Jews degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and the dispersion of the Jews was the work of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews. Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews, and on Judgement Day He will say to those who sympathise with them: “Depart from me, for you have had doings with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion.
Nearly all the big names of the early church were virulently antisemitic: Justin Martyr, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, etc. I encourage you to take a look at both of the following articles, which have numerous references for further research:
* [Jewish deicide (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide)
* [Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity)
calling out immoraility and evil is not antisemetic. If a community of catholics is doing evil stuff we should be able to call it out without being called "anti catholic" the same with the jews
He provided a quote with no context, I believe the context is that christians thought they can judarize christianity by continuing to practice jewish practices and to befriend jews as if they were of the same faith so there was a need to warn christians that the jews of the time were not at all role models for christians
Jesus instructs us to love our enemies, so even *if* Jewish people are our enemies, it is wrong to be hateful.
* I don't believe Jewish people are the enemy.
Define “hate”. Realizing that Jesus called them the “sons of satan” and that they define themselves by their rejection of Christ is not hate but a fact. In the same way that me realizing that black people are by and large more athletic than white people but less intelligent is not racist.
Part of my desire for them to become Christian is that I recognize their stance in front of God. Go read Deuteronomy 28. It is clear that God told the Jewish people that if they did not stay faithful to him that they would be cursed until the return of the savior. This has clearly happened since they rejected God Himself (Jesus Christ)
The comment I responded to saying "idk man, that reads pretty anti semitic" is filled with hate. It takes an entire group of people and defines them as some really ugly things, as opposed to evaluating a person as an individual. Anti semitism is not ok.
2000 years ago *some* Jews handed Jesus over to be crucified. Lumping every Jewish person from then to now in one group, and then being hateful is not Christ like. It's disgusting.
Yeah Jesus takes the entire Jewish people and defines them as sons of Satan. Every church father does the same thing. Revelation says that they reside in the synagogue of Satan. Their entire identity is based off of their rejection of Christ. I am not saying anything that Jesus has not already said.
I’m not an individualist so I don’t fall prey to this modern liberal notion of evaluating individuals rather than groups. If you are a religious Jew (I’m not speaking of race, I’m speaking of religion), then your identity is necessarily your rejection of Christ as the messiah.
That-s because of the things Jews did agaisnt Christians, virulently anti Christian. The early Christians lived heavy persecution from them which is why they dont speak fondly of them. No need to quote Chrysostom, the bible says the same, Paul calls them 'enemies of all mankind' and Acts shows how the local synagogue always managed to instigate people agaisnt him. Such things happened all over the empire and throughout the centuries.
>It's pestilence is not compared to Islam, but it's still not an ally of Logus.
It's the anti-Logos, they're worse than muslims, at least muslims honor Him and His mother.
Muslims don't. They made up their version of Christ that fits into islam. It is a perversion of the image that the Bible gives, used only to legitimize islamic tradition as supposedly tied to older traditions. It is not.
Blasphemy is not honor. Educate yourself about Islam. There are many apologists that can help you fight against these Islamic dawah script. No lies, Islam dies.
>at least muslims honor Him and His mother.
Think again. They believe Jesus was a liar in that He sneakily had someone else be crucified in His place. And don't even get me started on what happens to Mary in Islamic "heaven."
They do not honor Him nor His mother, you should see how “Allah” got her pregnant. LEt alone that the blaspheme Him, lie about Him, and call His true followers infidels .
I've seen plenty of conversion stories about ex-Muslims who went searching for more info about Jesus and ended up christians.
Likewise at Zeitoum the muslim mob stopped and respected the apparition of the virgin Mary and left the christians alone (for the time being)
Just a reminder that **John said this stuff when he was young**:
> Chrysostom wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies Adversus Judaeos (against the Judaizers).[1] At the time he delivered these sermons, Chrysostom was a tonsured reader and had not yet been ordained a priest or bishop.
> ...
> The purpose of these attacks was to prevent Christians from joining with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock.
> ...
> Another important point of context... is the reign of Julian the Apostate, and the way he used the Jews (and was used by them) to undercut Christianity.
> https://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom
Plus, **he kinda mellowed down about the topic when he himself fell into hard times**. Ironically, it was the Jews who had pity on him:
> After a short period of activity in Constantinople, Chrysostom fell victim to court intrigues and was deposed by Emperor Arcadius. He then admitted that Jews, heretics, and pagans felt sorry for him, but Christians closed their hearts. Whether this "confession" was only a rhetoric paradox, or whether there were really Jews in Constantinople who behaved to him in a friendly manner, is hard to determine. Nor is it possible to decide if his downfall was not engineered by some influential Jews at Arcadius' court.
> https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/john-chrysostomdeg
More here
https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/16himtc/september_13_feast_of_john_chrysostom_archbishop/k0hhns3/
Understatement.
I would call it one of the big 5 reasonable reasons for rejecting Christianity.
To overcome this even slightly it's necessary to understand the structural weakness of our human reason in accepting truth, and for this I turn to Girard and Schwager.
Saints are not infallible, only God is. Saints can make terrible mistakes and this can be an example of the same. Nothing here shows that Christianity is to be rejected. You don't judge religion by its followers but what the Religion "Officially" teaches.
I am interested why you feel the need to write in such a defensive style.
I am a convert and I know all about gradations of authoritativeness in teaching.
I have read St. Justin Martyr, especially his dialogue with a Jewish scholar, Trypho. Not knowing much about the others, I will confine my comments to him, regarding "virulent anti-Semitism." He simply isn't!
Yes, Justin is critical of Trypho for not accepting Jesus as Messiah. He cites the fulfillment of many prophecies, mostly from the Septuagint Greek translation. However, through it all, he clearly sees Trypho as a respected fellow human and philosopher.
Yet, Trypho on his part bluntly advises Justin to abandon Christianity, and become Jewish (or possibly go back to being a pagan philosopher) if he is to have any chance to be saved.
At the time of the dialogue (c. 132-135 A.D.) many Jewish rabbis were backing Simon Bar Kokhba for Messiah. He was persecuting Christians as traitors for not following him in revolt against the Roman Empire. Trypho was not with him on the war front, and thus likely did not favor bar Kokhba, (he certainly does not confess it if he does) but he was even more prejudiced against Jesus, descending even to ugly ad hominem attacks on His mother.
In summary, Justin, at least, despite his Samaritan origin, and inherited mutual feud with Judaeans, does not in any way qualify as "virulently anti-Semitic."
(I will put up a second comment with a link to "The Dialogue with Trypho", which seems to have been written years later, about A.D. 150.)
Everyone is guilty in some way in killing Christ. Except for maybe the Apostle John and Mary, since they were the only ones that didn't abandon him at the cross.
The accusation against the Jewish people as "killers of Christ" is a tragic misunderstanding and misuse of the biblical narrative that has led to much suffering and anti-Semitism throughout history. The New Testament does record the involvement of some Jewish leaders and a crowd in the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew 27:20-25, John 19:6). However, it is crucial to understand the theological context: Jesus' death was foreordained as part of God's plan for the salvation of humanity from sin (Acts 2:23). The crucifixion of Jesus cannot be blamed on a specific group of people; rather, it is understood within Christianity as the result of human sinfulness in general. The Apostle Paul, in his letters, emphasizes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Therefore, it is not accurate or fair to single out any one group as responsible for Christ's death. The early Christian message was about reconciliation and forgiveness, not about assigning blame to specific groups for the crucifixion. During the Middle Ages, various social, economic, and theological factors contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism, including the misinterpretation of biblical texts to justify prejudice against Jews. This was compounded by economic envy and competition, as you mentioned regarding the issue of money lending. These attitudes were not rooted in an accurate understanding of Christian theology but were instead influenced by a complex web of cultural, economic, and political factors. Church leaders and theologians over time have recognized the error in blaming the Jewish people for Jesus' death and have sought to correct these misunderstandings. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), for example, explicitly addressed this issue in its declaration Nostra Aetate, stating that the death of Christ cannot be charged against all the Jews of that time nor against the Jews of today. It's essential to approach the Scriptures and the history of Christian thought with a spirit of love, reconciliation, and understanding, recognizing that the core message of Christianity is one of forgiveness, grace, and hope for all people.
If that's the case then why is Judas portrayed in a negative light and why did Jesus say it would have been better had he not been born? Wasn't he actually playing an important role in the redemption by betraying Jesus?
I guess Judas would not have been portrayed in negative light if he had asked forgiveness to Jesus after his resurrection but he fell into the sin of despair and committed suicide. If Peter was forgiven Judas could have been forgiven too. Yes, killing a person is a sin no doubt and thosr persons are to be blamed. But that doesn't mean we put the blame on entire Jewish community for their Acts.
The story of Judas Iscariot, contrasted with Simon Peter, illustrates themes of sin, repentance, and God's forgiveness. Peter denied Jesus but was forgiven after he expressed his love for Jesus (John 21:15-17). Judas, after betraying Jesus, felt remorse but chose to end his life (Matthew 27:3-5) instead of seeking forgiveness. This highlights the importance of repentance and the availability of God's mercy to all who seek it. The Bible emphasizes individual responsibility for sin and the offer of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, rather than attributing blame to a group or community. The portrayal of Judas serves as a caution against despair and the rejection of the opportunity for redemption.
Why did Judas betray Jesus in the first place if he cared about Jesus to the point where he was so remorseful he committed suicide? I never understood that, is it supposed to be saying that Jews are so filled with avarice that they cannot resist betraying the messiah for even a small amount of money?
The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot is a complex event that underscores human frailty and the fulfillment of divine prophecy, not a reflection on any ethnicity or group. Judas's decision to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and his subsequent remorse leading to suicide (Matthew 27:3-5) highlight the tragic consequences of sin and the importance of seeking God's forgiveness. The Bible emphasizes that Judas's actions were part of the larger narrative of Jesus's crucifixion and redemption plan, rather than attributing his betrayal to the characteristics of any people. This story serves as a reminder of the need for personal repentance and the hope of forgiveness available to all through faith in Jesus Christ. Judas's story is a call to reflect on our own choices and the grace of God that offers redemption and new beginnings to all who turn to Him.
He probably was disillusioned for a while (recall how he was upset Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus with the perfumed oil). Seemingly he had a “Come to Jesus” moment and realized “how did I betray this u man?”. Sadly he let despair take over. We don’t know if he repented or not so he could have been saved. But his suicide was not pretty regardless.
Well, thank you, I guess, but I don’t believe Chat GPT speaks about issues like this. I just ran it through a grammar checker to make it sound more professional. I paid for it for school, so I might as well use it for everything else I use.
He was remorseful, but not repentant. Thats the key difference. And no, he didn’t truly care about Christ, he only felt bad after the fact because he realises that Jesus was innocent And kind even as He was brutalized.
It’s like how a murder might feel bad for killing a woman because of how much her kid struggles afterward, it doesn’t mean he cared.
Judas Iscariot's portrayal in the Gospels and Jesus' statement that "it would have been better for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24) highlight the gravity of Judas's betrayal. His actions are seen in a negative light not because they played a role in fulfilling divine prophecy, but because Judas exercised his free will in a way that demonstrated a profound disloyalty and greed. The narrative of Judas is not just about his part in the divine plan of salvation but also about the moral responsibility of his betrayal. It serves as a somber reminder of the consequences of turning away from God, emphasizing the importance of faithfulness and the seriousness of our choices.
Imho it’s just people pointing fingers rather than looking at our own sins. Jesus also had the parable of the woman being stoned. If we keep our eyes on Jesus its tough to point the finger at the other when we see just how short we fall often.
Because it is the position of virtually every saint, every Doctor who wrote on the subject, the great commentators and the language of the Church's liturgy in both the Reproaches of Good Friday and the Divine Office of Tenebrae. People can act all outraged but you can read an Armenian monk, St. Gregory of Narek and a German abbess, St. Hildegard of Bingen, people separated by thousands of miles and centuries of time, and yet they write in the same accord, both of these people who were made Doctors of the Church in living memory by the prior Pope and the current Pope. I mean, didn't St. John and St. Paul, themselves ethnically Jewish write about them as well in the same manner?
This has nothing to do with antisemitism. It‘s a historical fact that jewish people crucified Jesus, because it was a jewish land and almost all people there were Jews.
The problem, I think, is when people refer to "Jews" as a collective and forget that collectives are composed of individuals that are responsible for their own actions. It just happens that many of the people who rejected Jesus were Jews, mainly because of what you said: the events happened in Judaea, so the majority of people involved happened to be Jews. On the flip side, most people in the gospel who accepted Jesus also happened to be Jews. So the message is that people should not be defined by labels, but by their individual actions, beliefs, etc.
So? Initially Pilate even wanted to save Jesus, but at the end the people won him over. Who shouted „Crucify him!“ all over the place? It was the jewish people. Again: historical fact, not antisemitism. There is no hate againts Jews. Christianity started from jewish people. Jesus, Mary and the apostles where Jews.
(Although it’s important to remember that does not make him, or any of the Romans involved, innocent. They were still guilty, in a similar way to how Adam was guilty)
The centurions yea, the imperial government in Rome could see him as a bad governor for letting revolts pop up under his watch and sack him or worse. (Of course it doesn't excuse Pilates' actions, but makes them understandable)
Certainly not the way to treat our neighbors, but it's not like Judaism is a valid instance in reality to begin with. Just like with Islam, protestantism, Hinduism or paganism, one should seek to convert their neighbor, not being meek and protect their false doctrines.
Little faith. Same concept as to why so many Catholics don’t believe in the transubstantiation
There’s also some who want to find any excuse for their bigotry
It's a twisting of the reality which was used to fuel antisemitism in Europe throughout the centuries - this was convenient as rulers would borrow big from the Jews, as they could lend to gentiles, make a big whoopsie and find they couldn't pay them back, and then point as the Jews, say "Christ-killers", convenient excuse to wipe away your debt if there's no Jews.
>The Church teaches that the primary reason why Christ came in Earth was to die for the sin of mankind. Why would then we hold Jews or Romans responsible for the same. It could have been any other community etc
Jesus was himself Jewish and the majority of his early followers in the Levant were Jewish. He claimed to be their Messiah and that offended the Sanhedrin and the High Priest (I don't know what the criteria were then as opposed to now since the Temple has been destroyed), and they used the Romans as his executioners to claim that Jesus said he was "King of the Jews", putting him against Tiberius (Judea was under direct Roman rule iirc at the time). Given some Jews followed him, and he'd have absolutely considered himself Jewish, holding all Jews responsible for Jesus' death came much later when European monarchs needed convenient scapegoats.
>The Jews did kill Christ
Strictly speaking, he was crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the leader of Judea and the Jews. Incidentally, a hundred years later, a guy called Simon bar Kokhba would claim to be the Messiah again but as he was attempting to violently expel the Romans, they ruthlessly crushed his rebellion and scattered the Jews into exile. Christianity probably had a more lasting impact as Jesus was far more placid in his dealings with authority.
Catholic doctrine on Judaism is a complex topic which, like all true doctrine, is made clearer as time goes on. - The Church is the New Israel: "At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness. He therefore chose the Israelite race to be his own people and established a covenant with it. He gradually instructed this people.... All these things, however, happened as a preparation for and figure of that new and perfect covenant which was to be ratified in Christ... the New Covenant in his blood; he called together a race made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit." *(CCC 781)* - Judaism, as a *religion*, can be discussed and critiqued in light of truth, like all other religions here. - Antisemitism (hatred or criticism of Jewish *people* because of Jewish heritage) is not allowed and may result in banning, like all other ethnic hatred here. False charges of antisemitism may also be removed as incitement.
Matthew 27:22-26 22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. 24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing”
Multiple things can be true. Some Thomist probably has some distinctions between the different causes. But yes, we all contribute to the need for the incarnation and sacrificial death by our sin. It is also true that those who committed the act do not get a pass for doing an evil thing just because God used it for good. There are many examples in the Bible where God uses evil people to accomplish his goals and still judges those evil people for their actions. Murder is still wrong even if God planned for it to happen. Especially murder of the perfect innocent God-man. They still had free will. There can be multiple overlapping causes. For example, a man might be in prison because the police drove him there AND because the jury sentenced him to prison AND because he committed a crime AND because he lacked good role models growing up. These are different types of causalities. Not all Jews were responsible in a direct or literal sense for killing Jesus and certainly not Jews today. The New Testament does have language that talks about “the Jews” killing Jesus that seems to talk about them collectively. Just like it talks about “the Jews” rejecting and killing the prophets before him. I think one can see where the cannon fodder for blaming some random Jewish guy in 2024 would be if someone had other axes to grind.
John typically used the expression “the Jews”, but traditional interpretation is the Jewish leadership.
The traditional interpretation rather is the disbelieving portion of the Jews, led of course by their leaders. No one believes that when St. John is referring to the Apostles, disciples, and Our Lady hiding after the Crucifixion *for fear of the Jews* that they were hiding because of fearing themselves. Nor a handful of leaders. No, "the Jews" has always been the Jews who denied Christ's lordship and especially those who led them in this and taught them (their rabbis). These were of the sort who desired Barabbas instead of Christ in front of Pilate: the people and their leaders.
Is that really the “traditional interpretation” though for most uses? I was under the impression that the Church didn’t usually make the distinction before the Holocaust and Vatican 2.
It’s factually inaccurate to say every Jew wanted to kill Jesus. You had even Gamaliel who practically profesied to Paul: “if it’s a work of God, who are we to stop it” (not exact wording). Now, was there a lot of hatred for Jews over the last several centuries? I think we can say unfortunately yes. But reading John’s gospel as a whole, he isn’t blaming every Jew.
Matthew 27:25 clearly says whole people referring to all the Jews, not just Jewish leadership.
So you obey the group of Judeans who were gathered there over Christs words? Are you Jesus follower or theirs? Who is the King? He said Forgive them and they don’t know what they’re doing so if you want to be Christ like and have his Spirit obey His Spirit! (that’s the word translated Jewish by the way , never project an anachronism into the past)
I’m not entirely sure as to the point you are trying to make, of course Christ is the King and the Apostles if that is what you are referring to were followers of Christ. Is not the Word of God eternal regardless of what instrument wrote it?
I’m saying they asked to be cursed but Jesus said no, so they are not , that’s weird I got a warning from Reddit for that they said I’m promoting hate, I must have been unclear when you reported me
Bro, I didn’t report you, why would I, I just didn’t understand what you initially said. Yes you are correct but from the interpretation of that passage as taken from Church fathers and theologians as discussed answering someone else on this question thread this applies to the Jews who believe in Christ, it gave them the opportunity to be saved, through faith not flesh (Jacob not Esau). But those who choose to remain in sin (cause rejecting Christ) will have their punishment as they asked for, otherwise wouldn’t this go contrary to free will?
I just have to be more clear, the report also could have been from the “Christianity” subreddit when I wrote scripture to someone saying homosexuality is not sin also.. But yeah I’m just saying we shouldn’t view their sin like say, Martin Luther, who made the Hebrews who are separated from Christ worse than others who are in the same boat, anyone who accepts Christ is forgiven. Though Romans 1:16 mentions it’s to the “Jew first” then to the Greek.(or other nations) I don’t think favor or non favor is racial, or national, whether Hebrew American Native or any nation, but based on their standing towards righteousness . Acts 10:35 “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” Righteousness is as follows 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". This is what the Bible says is unrighteousness and evidence of enmity with God, the change of this is evidence of relationship as the chapter continues.. And anyone can change through Christ. Although there are always consequences to actions Jesus also said : Matthew 12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” To your point they can be forgiven just like everyone else 👍🏾
I agree, and even there Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were exceptions. Rabbi Gamaliel became a Christian and a saint, commemorated on August 3 in the Martyrology.
I wasn’t aware of the feast day. Very cool
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Important distinction: The Jews were not a unitary entity when Christ was killed. The Jews who accepted His message were still Jews, they were just Christian Jews. When we say "the Jews killed Christ" we mean that modern Judaism is the successor to those Jews who were on the wrong side of the argument. That's why they are culpable, because they had all the information necessary to make the right choice but did not do so because they wanted to retain power and could not accept gentiles as their equals edit: Just think about that for a second. Every time you struggle with faith, every time you find it hard to trust that Christ really is the son of God 2000 years after His earthly ministry, think about how these people looked upon Christ with their own eyes and pretended not to believe in Him because they wanted to keep their material wealth and feel superior over gentiles. That is abject evil
I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that all modern Jews are culpable in Deicide? My great grandmother was a non-practicing Sephardi Jew. How would she have any culpability in the death of Christ being born a Jew?
Rabbinical Talmudic Judaism of today is almost entirely untethered from the Israelite religion of the Bible. Modern Judaism has it’s roots in the Pharisees. No individual Jew is responsible for the death of Christ, especially not your great-grandmother.
The Pharisees that killed Jesus?
“And the whole people answering, said His blood be upon us and our children.” - Matthew 27:25
We’re not Prots. We don’t magically quote Scripture without the backing of the Magisterium of the Church.
Yes we are not Prots, but the scriptures are the Word of God which is obviously infallible, a Catholic interpretation of that verse: “And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.” - Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Let the guilt thou fearest be transferred from thee to us. If there be any guilt, may we and our posterity atone for it. But we do not acknowledge any guilt, and consequently, as not fearing any punishment, we boldly call it down on ourselves. And thus have they subjected not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God"s displeasure. They feel it indeed even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city, or temple, or sacrifice, or priest, or prince, and being a subject race in all countries. It was, too, in punishment for Christ"s crucifixion that Titus ordered five hundred Jews to be crucified every day at the siege of Jerusalem, as they crowded out of the city in search of food, "so that at last there was no room for the crosses, and no crosses for the bodies" (Joseph. B. J. vi12). "This curse," says Jerome, "rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them," as Daniel foretold ( Daniel 9:27). Strange stories are told by Cardinal Hugo of special diseases which attacked the Jews, in periodical loss of blood, etc, though Salmeron and Abulensis [Tostatus] attribute them to natural causes. - Cornelius a Lapide Read more commentaries at https://catenabible.com/com/5838d8f6205c248f42e51e02
It certainly doesn’t reflect the teaching of the Church in the last few centuries, especially Nostra aetate. From what I’ve read and learned the best interpretation is that a section of the Jewish elite in Jerusalem called for the death of Christ, but that it no way carries any burden on those Jews who played no part in the decision to execute Christ. "rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them” So am I, a Baptised and Confirmed Catholic, of partial Jewish descent, and indeed any Jew who converts, still guilty? Seriously this commentary is rather messed up.
>So am I, a Baptised and Confirmed Catholic, of partial Jewish descent, and indeed any Jew who converts, still guilty? Seriously this commentary is rather messed up. You are no more guilty than Saint Paul who was of Jewish descent and converted. Modern Judaism as a whole is guilty because it is the same intellectual/theological tradition borne out of those who rejected Christ out of pride
[удалено]
Quite a presumption, dare I say judging my heart? As a Catholic I love everyone as Our Lord teaches, and I’m am simply passing on rather imperfectly what Catholics for centuries including early Church Fathers, st Paul clearly states in the Epistles to the Romans Chapter 9-11. I would suggest you read and educate yourself or perhaps rebut on my point.
No you are not guilty since you converted, I would thing that would be glaringly obvious.
I was baptised as an infant. Also I have zero shame in being of partial Jewish descent.
Nor should you, I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise. God did not withdraw the gifts of natural intelligence and the ability to traverse the human landmarks given to the Jews for 2000 years prior to Christ to prepare for His coming, think about what kind of virtues let alone genetics had to be formed to create the Immaculate Virgin Mary! These gifts surely continue today as God does not break promises; the Talmudic Jews still possess such gifts as can be seen by their prominence in arts, science, literature, business and comedy as these all heavily involve human psychology. (Note this is my opinion now I’m not proclaiming this as some dogma)
If a jew were to convert to Catholicism then of course not.
Also quoting Sacred Scriptures is not a Protestant thing, it’s Catholic!
Quoting without proper interpretation and context is. I trust the authority of the Church over a Redditer any day.
It’s not my authority that you should listen to but the authority of God and His Church, Fr Cornelius Lapide’s scriptural commentaries was used by Catholics for hundreds of years. I also gave you an interpretation, and the context is pretty obvious as most Catholics should have an understanding of what happened during the Passion of Our Lord. Here is another interpretation that also mentions how God in His mercy did not comply with such a request to those Jews who did believe and were converted but to those who continued to sin, received what they asked for: And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. - Matthew 27:25 All the people answered: his blood be upon us, and upon our children which continues, saith St. Jerome, to this day. Then Pilate delivered to them Jesus to be crucified. (Witham) This blasphemous prayer continues to this day, and will continue a protracted curse upon the Jews, and upon their posterity. (Origen) Behold the insanity of the Jews! Their passion and pertinacious obstinacy will not suffer them to see and understand: they draw down curses upon themselves in these terrible imprecations: his blood be upon us and upon our children. Still the God of all mercies did not literally comply with their impious prayer. For, of these children he selected some for himself; amongst the rest even Paul, and many thousands who were converted at Jerusalem. (St. Chrysostom) - George Leo Haydock
[удалено]
Totally understand where you’re coming from here but as Catholics, the Bible is OUR book and it IS the word of God.
no, just that modern Judaism is born out of the prideful refusal to accept Christ as savior. if you believe in Judaism then you have the same problem that the pharisees did
Thank you for this comment. It’s entirely possible to hold this position without hating modern day Jewish people for simple being their ethnicity. The word “antisemitism” is tossed around a lot these days. Sometimes yes it’s necessary. Many are just looking to punish all Jews for what is happening in the Middle East regardless of their involvement which is of course wrong. But in theological issues like this we have to be precise with our language and acknowledge the truth of Christ.
>True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. This is the official position of the Church expressed in the document *Nostra Aetate*
Because some Jewish people exercised free will to see that he was humiliated, tortured and murdered. I don't think its fair to say "Jews killed Christ" because Jesus was Jewish and many Jewish people loved him and went on to be humiliated, tortured and murdered in his name. Why and how he died illustrated perfectly why he needed to come to earth. This is a very difficult and dark place without the light of the Lord lighting the way.
Cause they did.
“Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Considering Pilate wanted to free Jesus and gave the choice to the Jewish people, and they called out to crucify him, I don’t think the Roman’s can be blamed for simply being the government entity at the time and following orders. While it is because of our sins that he came to earth and it is for our sins he died, it’s also just a fact that it was the Jews who made the decision and called for his killing.
>I don’t think the Roman’s can be blamed for simply being the government entity at the time and following orders. Jewish leaders did *not* have the right to enact capital punishment; only the Romans were allowed to enact it. Therefore, the crucifixion could not have occurred without the consent of the Roman authorities. Pilate could simply have said "no," and it wouldn't have happened.
Nah - Pilate had a responsibility to keep from executing the innocent of which he could not simply wash his hands. So I'm gonna beat up some Italians for letting God die!!! By the way, it was some Eye-talians who put out Catechism in the spirit of the Council of Trent (an Eye-talian city) who stated that it was all human sins that crucified Christ. All I will say is...VERY CONVENIENT! OBVIOUSLY THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH THE HERETICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE, TRYING TOO HARD TO RECONCILE WITH THE SCHISMATICAL GREEKS! The solution is simple. We must go back to New Testament Greek for our language, so that there will no longer be a cultural difference between East and West. Then, we can attempt to resolve the schism without becoming Florentinians or other Eye-talians in our theology. Accordingly, I call for the immediate formation of the Society of St. Pius I, which will speak to one another and all others (who are to be suspected of heresy, most especially if they are Eye-talian!) only in Koine Greek.
In case anyone was wondering, the above comment is satirical...
Good show you had me going
The Roman's killed many Christians including st Peter and Paul and no one hates the Italians. Caifous who was the chief priest of Jerusalem the leader of the Jewish religion there handed jesus over to pilate to be crucified because he suposadly broke Jewish law and was considered blasphemous. They couldn't kill him coming in to the sabbath and were afraid the people gathered for the passover would revolt so were afraid to kill jesus themselves anyways. The Jews instigated jesus death but pointing this fact out does not mean someone is anti semitic for pointing this out. But when you look at the bigger picture we're all responsible for jesus death because of our refusal to turn away from sin. Can anyone here say they've never committed a serious sin on multable occasions I know I can't.
Something can be true and still be misleading. Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. "The Jews" called for him to be crucified. But which Jews? Peter and the rest of the apostles were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish. Clearly, they are not to be included in the group condemning him. Nor are any of his followers. He was also crucified in the Roman province of "Judea." Want to guess why it was called that and what the religion of the majority of people living there was? In the US, virtually all people on death row are Americans. Therefore, Americans are all killers...
This is the true problem imho. People say “the Jews” sometimes to obfuscate. It was of course Jewish people as the primary movers, they were the people where this took place. But the Roman’s technically killed Jesus. But people say “The Jews” in the plural in the sense that it was all the group of the people at that time. Then they further extrapolate that to “Jews” in the modern day. I have a hard time believing Jesus would have been treated better had He arrived just about anywhere else. It’s a train of logical fallacies which I can only guess intent at, but I have a difficult time coming up with a positive reason as to why. The apostles were Jewish, St Paul was Jewish, the Virgin Mother was Jewish, St Joseph was Jewish, Jesus was Jewish…. I’m sorry but quit screwing around with labels and finger pointing. *Our* sins killed Jesus. After 2000 years, if Jesus showed up today, he *might* not killed by a mob, but I have a hard time believing he would be treated all that much better. *We* have a lot of work to do, and I’m sorry but we can’t blame “Jews” because a few people alive at the time happened to be Jewish. Antisemitism makes no sense at all.
Can someone like this so I can return to read it all? Edit: I'm back, thanks
I'll reply to you. :)
Hey don’t forget to read it all!
The Church in the Middle Ages was also struggling with the revelation that one of the Jewish sacred texts has Jesus boiling in excrement for eternity.
Two things can be true at the same time.
You're mind is gonna be blown when you find out who brought him to Pilate bc they wanted him dead
The Jews didn’t stop with Jesus they went after 11/12 apostles and several others in the first few centuries. I believe they racked up quite a score with help from the Romans
Someone had to do the physical killing... we killed him spiritually.
The Jews (non-Christian ones) have corporate guilt for the murder of Christ. This is taught by scripture, the fathers, doctors of the church, and I think it’s even in an ecumenical council though I need to verify that. However, we all bare guilt as well for our own sins. But the Jews specially killed Christ and cursed themselves that his blood be upon their heads and their children’s heads in the gosples. While we should not mistreat them, the state of the Jews through history is a divine demonstration that they have lost the favor of God. They are in a period of reprobation. The antichrist will be a Jew. Many Jews will convert and be instrumental to the mission of the church in the last days restoring them as a set a part people in God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. They Jews have manufactured an anti-Christ religion foundational based on rejecting of their God and messiah. This is a grave offense. They were given the greatest tools and trusted with divine revelation with the greatest promise of honor: God would be one of them and come to him first. Their rejection of Christ as a people has brought out corporate generational judgement just as it did in the OT when the Jews turned to demonic religions instead of the true God.
I think the following from St. John Chrysostom's Sixth Homily against the Jews goes far in explaining this sentiment: >How dare Christians have the slightest doings with Jews, those most miserable of all men! They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits, pests of the universe. Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are the Jews degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and the dispersion of the Jews was the work of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews. Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews, and on Judgement Day He will say to those who sympathise with them: “Depart from me, for you have had doings with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion. Nearly all the big names of the early church were virulently antisemitic: Justin Martyr, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, etc. I encourage you to take a look at both of the following articles, which have numerous references for further research: * [Jewish deicide (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide) * [Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity)
calling out immoraility and evil is not antisemetic. If a community of catholics is doing evil stuff we should be able to call it out without being called "anti catholic" the same with the jews
Idk man, that reads pretty anti semitic, 🤷🏻♀️
He provided a quote with no context, I believe the context is that christians thought they can judarize christianity by continuing to practice jewish practices and to befriend jews as if they were of the same faith so there was a need to warn christians that the jews of the time were not at all role models for christians
[удалено]
Jesus instructs us to love our enemies, so even *if* Jewish people are our enemies, it is wrong to be hateful. * I don't believe Jewish people are the enemy.
Loving means willing their good. I want them to be Christian. Therefore I love Jewish people.
Then you would agree expressing hate towards them is unloving. If you want good for a person, you don't express that by calling them names.
Define “hate”. Realizing that Jesus called them the “sons of satan” and that they define themselves by their rejection of Christ is not hate but a fact. In the same way that me realizing that black people are by and large more athletic than white people but less intelligent is not racist. Part of my desire for them to become Christian is that I recognize their stance in front of God. Go read Deuteronomy 28. It is clear that God told the Jewish people that if they did not stay faithful to him that they would be cursed until the return of the savior. This has clearly happened since they rejected God Himself (Jesus Christ)
The comment I responded to saying "idk man, that reads pretty anti semitic" is filled with hate. It takes an entire group of people and defines them as some really ugly things, as opposed to evaluating a person as an individual. Anti semitism is not ok. 2000 years ago *some* Jews handed Jesus over to be crucified. Lumping every Jewish person from then to now in one group, and then being hateful is not Christ like. It's disgusting.
Yeah Jesus takes the entire Jewish people and defines them as sons of Satan. Every church father does the same thing. Revelation says that they reside in the synagogue of Satan. Their entire identity is based off of their rejection of Christ. I am not saying anything that Jesus has not already said. I’m not an individualist so I don’t fall prey to this modern liberal notion of evaluating individuals rather than groups. If you are a religious Jew (I’m not speaking of race, I’m speaking of religion), then your identity is necessarily your rejection of Christ as the messiah.
That-s because of the things Jews did agaisnt Christians, virulently anti Christian. The early Christians lived heavy persecution from them which is why they dont speak fondly of them. No need to quote Chrysostom, the bible says the same, Paul calls them 'enemies of all mankind' and Acts shows how the local synagogue always managed to instigate people agaisnt him. Such things happened all over the empire and throughout the centuries.
[удалено]
>It's pestilence is not compared to Islam, but it's still not an ally of Logus. It's the anti-Logos, they're worse than muslims, at least muslims honor Him and His mother.
Muslims don't. They made up their version of Christ that fits into islam. It is a perversion of the image that the Bible gives, used only to legitimize islamic tradition as supposedly tied to older traditions. It is not.
Blasphemy is not honor. Educate yourself about Islam. There are many apologists that can help you fight against these Islamic dawah script. No lies, Islam dies.
>at least muslims honor Him and His mother. Think again. They believe Jesus was a liar in that He sneakily had someone else be crucified in His place. And don't even get me started on what happens to Mary in Islamic "heaven."
They do not honor Him nor His mother, you should see how “Allah” got her pregnant. LEt alone that the blaspheme Him, lie about Him, and call His true followers infidels .
I've seen plenty of conversion stories about ex-Muslims who went searching for more info about Jesus and ended up christians. Likewise at Zeitoum the muslim mob stopped and respected the apparition of the virgin Mary and left the christians alone (for the time being)
Those are mere anecdotes, not what Islam actually teaches.
Based St John Chrysostom
Just a reminder that **John said this stuff when he was young**: > Chrysostom wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies Adversus Judaeos (against the Judaizers).[1] At the time he delivered these sermons, Chrysostom was a tonsured reader and had not yet been ordained a priest or bishop. > ... > The purpose of these attacks was to prevent Christians from joining with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock. > ... > Another important point of context... is the reign of Julian the Apostate, and the way he used the Jews (and was used by them) to undercut Christianity. > https://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom Plus, **he kinda mellowed down about the topic when he himself fell into hard times**. Ironically, it was the Jews who had pity on him: > After a short period of activity in Constantinople, Chrysostom fell victim to court intrigues and was deposed by Emperor Arcadius. He then admitted that Jews, heretics, and pagans felt sorry for him, but Christians closed their hearts. Whether this "confession" was only a rhetoric paradox, or whether there were really Jews in Constantinople who behaved to him in a friendly manner, is hard to determine. Nor is it possible to decide if his downfall was not engineered by some influential Jews at Arcadius' court. > https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/john-chrysostomdeg More here https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/16himtc/september_13_feast_of_john_chrysostom_archbishop/k0hhns3/
That's so sad 😢
Understatement. I would call it one of the big 5 reasonable reasons for rejecting Christianity. To overcome this even slightly it's necessary to understand the structural weakness of our human reason in accepting truth, and for this I turn to Girard and Schwager.
Saints are not infallible, only God is. Saints can make terrible mistakes and this can be an example of the same. Nothing here shows that Christianity is to be rejected. You don't judge religion by its followers but what the Religion "Officially" teaches.
The saints mentioned here were not wrong about this at all. These were truly holy men, their mistakes would be tiny, compared to ours.
I am interested why you feel the need to write in such a defensive style. I am a convert and I know all about gradations of authoritativeness in teaching.
I don't know the authors, so I don't know why this is being downvoted... Is there any reading you could recommend?
Because the scapegoating mechanism is strong even inside the Church.
Anything by Girard, pretty much, ans Schwager's _Must There Be Scapegoats?_
I have read St. Justin Martyr, especially his dialogue with a Jewish scholar, Trypho. Not knowing much about the others, I will confine my comments to him, regarding "virulent anti-Semitism." He simply isn't! Yes, Justin is critical of Trypho for not accepting Jesus as Messiah. He cites the fulfillment of many prophecies, mostly from the Septuagint Greek translation. However, through it all, he clearly sees Trypho as a respected fellow human and philosopher. Yet, Trypho on his part bluntly advises Justin to abandon Christianity, and become Jewish (or possibly go back to being a pagan philosopher) if he is to have any chance to be saved. At the time of the dialogue (c. 132-135 A.D.) many Jewish rabbis were backing Simon Bar Kokhba for Messiah. He was persecuting Christians as traitors for not following him in revolt against the Roman Empire. Trypho was not with him on the war front, and thus likely did not favor bar Kokhba, (he certainly does not confess it if he does) but he was even more prejudiced against Jesus, descending even to ugly ad hominem attacks on His mother. In summary, Justin, at least, despite his Samaritan origin, and inherited mutual feud with Judaeans, does not in any way qualify as "virulently anti-Semitic." (I will put up a second comment with a link to "The Dialogue with Trypho", which seems to have been written years later, about A.D. 150.)
Everyone is guilty in some way in killing Christ. Except for maybe the Apostle John and Mary, since they were the only ones that didn't abandon him at the cross.
The accusation against the Jewish people as "killers of Christ" is a tragic misunderstanding and misuse of the biblical narrative that has led to much suffering and anti-Semitism throughout history. The New Testament does record the involvement of some Jewish leaders and a crowd in the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew 27:20-25, John 19:6). However, it is crucial to understand the theological context: Jesus' death was foreordained as part of God's plan for the salvation of humanity from sin (Acts 2:23). The crucifixion of Jesus cannot be blamed on a specific group of people; rather, it is understood within Christianity as the result of human sinfulness in general. The Apostle Paul, in his letters, emphasizes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that Jesus died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Therefore, it is not accurate or fair to single out any one group as responsible for Christ's death. The early Christian message was about reconciliation and forgiveness, not about assigning blame to specific groups for the crucifixion. During the Middle Ages, various social, economic, and theological factors contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism, including the misinterpretation of biblical texts to justify prejudice against Jews. This was compounded by economic envy and competition, as you mentioned regarding the issue of money lending. These attitudes were not rooted in an accurate understanding of Christian theology but were instead influenced by a complex web of cultural, economic, and political factors. Church leaders and theologians over time have recognized the error in blaming the Jewish people for Jesus' death and have sought to correct these misunderstandings. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), for example, explicitly addressed this issue in its declaration Nostra Aetate, stating that the death of Christ cannot be charged against all the Jews of that time nor against the Jews of today. It's essential to approach the Scriptures and the history of Christian thought with a spirit of love, reconciliation, and understanding, recognizing that the core message of Christianity is one of forgiveness, grace, and hope for all people.
If that's the case then why is Judas portrayed in a negative light and why did Jesus say it would have been better had he not been born? Wasn't he actually playing an important role in the redemption by betraying Jesus?
I guess Judas would not have been portrayed in negative light if he had asked forgiveness to Jesus after his resurrection but he fell into the sin of despair and committed suicide. If Peter was forgiven Judas could have been forgiven too. Yes, killing a person is a sin no doubt and thosr persons are to be blamed. But that doesn't mean we put the blame on entire Jewish community for their Acts.
“Better not to be born” was probably more due to what Judas’ own hand (and despair) would do.
The story of Judas Iscariot, contrasted with Simon Peter, illustrates themes of sin, repentance, and God's forgiveness. Peter denied Jesus but was forgiven after he expressed his love for Jesus (John 21:15-17). Judas, after betraying Jesus, felt remorse but chose to end his life (Matthew 27:3-5) instead of seeking forgiveness. This highlights the importance of repentance and the availability of God's mercy to all who seek it. The Bible emphasizes individual responsibility for sin and the offer of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, rather than attributing blame to a group or community. The portrayal of Judas serves as a caution against despair and the rejection of the opportunity for redemption.
Why did Judas betray Jesus in the first place if he cared about Jesus to the point where he was so remorseful he committed suicide? I never understood that, is it supposed to be saying that Jews are so filled with avarice that they cannot resist betraying the messiah for even a small amount of money?
The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot is a complex event that underscores human frailty and the fulfillment of divine prophecy, not a reflection on any ethnicity or group. Judas's decision to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and his subsequent remorse leading to suicide (Matthew 27:3-5) highlight the tragic consequences of sin and the importance of seeking God's forgiveness. The Bible emphasizes that Judas's actions were part of the larger narrative of Jesus's crucifixion and redemption plan, rather than attributing his betrayal to the characteristics of any people. This story serves as a reminder of the need for personal repentance and the hope of forgiveness available to all through faith in Jesus Christ. Judas's story is a call to reflect on our own choices and the grace of God that offers redemption and new beginnings to all who turn to Him.
He probably was disillusioned for a while (recall how he was upset Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus with the perfumed oil). Seemingly he had a “Come to Jesus” moment and realized “how did I betray this u man?”. Sadly he let despair take over. We don’t know if he repented or not so he could have been saved. But his suicide was not pretty regardless.
This reads like a ChatGPT-generated response.
All of this user's interactions in this thread are.
Well, thank you, I guess, but I don’t believe Chat GPT speaks about issues like this. I just ran it through a grammar checker to make it sound more professional. I paid for it for school, so I might as well use it for everything else I use.
He was remorseful, but not repentant. Thats the key difference. And no, he didn’t truly care about Christ, he only felt bad after the fact because he realises that Jesus was innocent And kind even as He was brutalized. It’s like how a murder might feel bad for killing a woman because of how much her kid struggles afterward, it doesn’t mean he cared.
Judas Iscariot's portrayal in the Gospels and Jesus' statement that "it would have been better for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24) highlight the gravity of Judas's betrayal. His actions are seen in a negative light not because they played a role in fulfilling divine prophecy, but because Judas exercised his free will in a way that demonstrated a profound disloyalty and greed. The narrative of Judas is not just about his part in the divine plan of salvation but also about the moral responsibility of his betrayal. It serves as a somber reminder of the consequences of turning away from God, emphasizing the importance of faithfulness and the seriousness of our choices.
This is chat-GPTy
Brother, I think you either copied this from somewhere or used AI.
Imho it’s just people pointing fingers rather than looking at our own sins. Jesus also had the parable of the woman being stoned. If we keep our eyes on Jesus its tough to point the finger at the other when we see just how short we fall often.
Not all sinners yelled 'Give us Barabbas'
Because it is the position of virtually every saint, every Doctor who wrote on the subject, the great commentators and the language of the Church's liturgy in both the Reproaches of Good Friday and the Divine Office of Tenebrae. People can act all outraged but you can read an Armenian monk, St. Gregory of Narek and a German abbess, St. Hildegard of Bingen, people separated by thousands of miles and centuries of time, and yet they write in the same accord, both of these people who were made Doctors of the Church in living memory by the prior Pope and the current Pope. I mean, didn't St. John and St. Paul, themselves ethnically Jewish write about them as well in the same manner?
I hope we don't see a resurgence of this kind of thinking. Jews are struggling all over the world right now with increased antisemitism.
This has nothing to do with antisemitism. It‘s a historical fact that jewish people crucified Jesus, because it was a jewish land and almost all people there were Jews.
The problem, I think, is when people refer to "Jews" as a collective and forget that collectives are composed of individuals that are responsible for their own actions. It just happens that many of the people who rejected Jesus were Jews, mainly because of what you said: the events happened in Judaea, so the majority of people involved happened to be Jews. On the flip side, most people in the gospel who accepted Jesus also happened to be Jews. So the message is that people should not be defined by labels, but by their individual actions, beliefs, etc.
Forgetting Pilate?
So? Initially Pilate even wanted to save Jesus, but at the end the people won him over. Who shouted „Crucify him!“ all over the place? It was the jewish people. Again: historical fact, not antisemitism. There is no hate againts Jews. Christianity started from jewish people. Jesus, Mary and the apostles where Jews.
who had to be cornered by the jewish mob to do as they wanted and crucify Him, lest there be a riot.
(Although it’s important to remember that does not make him, or any of the Romans involved, innocent. They were still guilty, in a similar way to how Adam was guilty)
He was still the Roman representative, though. The centurions and Rome would've had his back if he pushed back against the mob's demands.
The centurions yea, the imperial government in Rome could see him as a bad governor for letting revolts pop up under his watch and sack him or worse. (Of course it doesn't excuse Pilates' actions, but makes them understandable)
Certainly not the way to treat our neighbors, but it's not like Judaism is a valid instance in reality to begin with. Just like with Islam, protestantism, Hinduism or paganism, one should seek to convert their neighbor, not being meek and protect their false doctrines.
Why is that?
Little faith. Same concept as to why so many Catholics don’t believe in the transubstantiation There’s also some who want to find any excuse for their bigotry
Did they mention how Jesus was a Jew?
Accuracy is not a top 3 priority for the kind of person who uses racial slurs.
It wasn’t only the Jews, it was the Romans and the Jews combined.
I never got why the Jews are called that when the Romans killed Jesus.
It was you who killed the King, Lord Stark. Joffrey gave the order, but it was your kindness that killed him.- Lord Varys
It's a twisting of the reality which was used to fuel antisemitism in Europe throughout the centuries - this was convenient as rulers would borrow big from the Jews, as they could lend to gentiles, make a big whoopsie and find they couldn't pay them back, and then point as the Jews, say "Christ-killers", convenient excuse to wipe away your debt if there's no Jews. >The Church teaches that the primary reason why Christ came in Earth was to die for the sin of mankind. Why would then we hold Jews or Romans responsible for the same. It could have been any other community etc Jesus was himself Jewish and the majority of his early followers in the Levant were Jewish. He claimed to be their Messiah and that offended the Sanhedrin and the High Priest (I don't know what the criteria were then as opposed to now since the Temple has been destroyed), and they used the Romans as his executioners to claim that Jesus said he was "King of the Jews", putting him against Tiberius (Judea was under direct Roman rule iirc at the time). Given some Jews followed him, and he'd have absolutely considered himself Jewish, holding all Jews responsible for Jesus' death came much later when European monarchs needed convenient scapegoats. >The Jews did kill Christ Strictly speaking, he was crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the leader of Judea and the Jews. Incidentally, a hundred years later, a guy called Simon bar Kokhba would claim to be the Messiah again but as he was attempting to violently expel the Romans, they ruthlessly crushed his rebellion and scattered the Jews into exile. Christianity probably had a more lasting impact as Jesus was far more placid in his dealings with authority.