Turn on thread page Beta

Is this anti-semitic? (Long read, rep for best replies) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMonkey)

    Suffice to say google racism.
    suffice IT.

    If you're going to accuse people of ignorance then at least use correct English grammar when you do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moabubaker)

    I know what it means, im saying cos whenever someone says they are Anti-Islamic/Christian/Hindu etc., nobody will really give a damn, instead they will support that person and back them up, but when you say 'I am Anti-Semitic' everybody will jump on you, its like it is okay to be Anti-Islamic/Christian etc. but not Anti-Semitic.
    well that's just total nonsense. And Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group therefore antisemitism is racism, it has nothing to do with religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I certainly don't think it is ok to be anti any religion. AS LONG AS THEY KEEP THEIR END OF THE BARGAIN, BY NOT PREACHING HATE EITHER.

    My thread is about whether this leaflet is keeping their end of the bargain. The victim of the hate seems to be Jews. If it were Muslims I'd make the exact same thread.

    If the Jews wrote badly of Jesus, I'd also make a thread. Preaching hate is where my problem lies, the principle involved. Not the literal religions involved.
    What you're referring to isn't preaching hate though. The pamphlet is about the teachings of Jesus and one of the things Jesus did was to keep the temple sacred in accordance with Isiash 56:7
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    The big question: Is this anti-semitic?[/U]
    I think it comes down to one thing. Do you believe that for Christians (or the particular group of perpetrators of this leaflet) to believe that Jews will not go to heaven is anti-semetic.

    I can see this being a controversial thing - there are a few religions I think, that offer special privileges to those of that particular religion - is this really doing any different, aside from the fact that it concentrates on Jewish people?

    I firmly believe that it is anti-semetic, in that it clearly segregates and then judges against Jewish people. Whether other religions commit similar crimes, is an off-tangent point, I believe.

    Personally, I would not believe in a religion that discriminates against non-believers - whether Christianity as a whole commits this crime, or just those behind the leaflet, I do not know.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by vapid slut magician)
    What you're referring to isn't preaching hate though. The pamphlet is about the teachings of Jesus and one of the things Jesus did was to keep the temple sacred in accordance with Isiash 56:7
    I didn't say it was, I said I was concerned that it was. I just talked to the girl who is handing these out (she came to me to hand me one, unaware that I had it already) and we talked.

    I don't think she is anti-semistic or anything: what's weird is that she isn't CoE or Catholic, in her own words she is "evangelical" which is something in its own right.

    While I'm going to continue researching this, for interests sake, I wont exactly be making any kind of fuss over this, unless I uncover yet more questions through my researching.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Semantically, if the passages do summarise to "Jesus condemns the Jews" and "they will be punished most of all", then it is anti-semetic. It doesn't matter if its a religion, or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I didn't say it was, I said I was concerned that it was. I just talked to the girl who is handing these out (she came to me to hand me one, unaware that I had it already) and we talked.

    I don't think she is anti-semistic or anything: what's weird is that she isn't CoE or Catholic, in her own words she is "evangelical" which is something in its own right.

    While I'm going to continue researching this, for interests sake, I wont exactly be making any kind of fuss over this, unless I uncover yet more questions through my researching.
    I told you in the box she was Evangelical. C of E and Catholic Christians don't believe in the necessity to witness in the way Evangelicals do. You should watch that programme on iplayer about the 13 year old Evangelical Christian- might explain more what they're about. They basically believe that everyone's going to Hell and that God has commanded them to bring His Word to others in order to save them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think what you were given was from the FREE project which is by evangelical Christian's trying to spread the word about Christianity through giving out copies of Mark's Gospel.

    http://free-online.org/

    I don't have anything to say about whether it is anti-semetic or not, I have just heard of the project is all and it might help if other people can look at it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consultant)
    Semantically, if the passages do summarise to "Jesus condemns the Jews" and "they will be punished most of all", then it is anti-semetic. It doesn't matter if its a religion, or not.
    That's not the point, if you take one passage totally out of context then of course you can make it say whatever you like. In context it's about the scribes who have transgressed and made the temple unholy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    Ok here is some deeper research into the Pharisees!

    The Pharisees vision of Jewish law as a means by which ordinary people could engage with the sacred in their daily lives provided them with a position from which to respond to all four challenges in a way meaningful to the vast majority of Jews. Their responses would constitute Rabbinic Judaism.

    - Thus Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism is the same thing. (Forget about what the 4 challenges were, all thats important here is the fact those two terms mean the same thing.)

    During the Second Temple era, when Jews were divided into sects, the Pharisees were one sect among many.

    - Excellent, this means to say they'll go to hell is not anti semitic, they don't mean ALL Jews.

    After the destruction of the Second Temple, these sectarian divisions ended.

    - Oh noes ...

    Rabbinic Judaism eventually emerged as normative Judaism and in fact many today refer to Rabbinic Judaism simply as "Judaism."

    - Keep in mind this is effectively saying "the Pharisees eventually emerged..." To be this is simply to be Jewish, it's all Jewish people?

    "Jesus condemns the Pharisees" may well then become " Jesus condemns the Jews" as a fair, and not ridicilous, translation.

    But to do that would be to condemn himself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    This is also interesting:

    Some have argued that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation being the dominant narrative mode employed in the Talmud as a search for truth, and not necessarily a sign of opposition.)

    For example, when Jesus declares the sins of a paralytic man forgiven, the New Testament has the Pharisees criticizing Jesus' blasphemy. But Jewish sources from the time commonly associate illness with sin and healing with forgiveness, and there is no actual Rabbinic source that questions or criticizes this practice. Thus, the proposition that Jesus' healing was criticized by Pharisees is sharply at odds with the teachings of the Pharisees independently preserved.

    According to the New Testament the Pharisees objected to Jesus's mission to outcast groups such as beggars and tax-collectors, but Rabbinic texts actually emphasize the availability of forgiveness to all. Indeed, much of Jesus' teaching, for example the Sermon on the Mount, is consistent with that of the Pharisees.

    Some scholars believe that those passages of the New Testament that are most hostile to the Pharisees were written sometime after the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 [18], at a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus. At this time Christians sought most new converts from among the gentiles, and needed to explain why converts should listen to them rather than the Jews, concerning the Hebrew Bible. They thus would have presented a story of Jesus that was more sympathetic to Romans than to Jews. It was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is all taken from wiki, and in summary it suggests Jesus may have been both a Pharisee and a messenger of their cause, they come to the same conclusions about things. Jesus and the Pharisees go hand in hand, they hang out together and debate (a great sign of repsect in Pharisee culture.)

    However the new testament then seems to suggest Jesus hates them. The title of that one passage I keep mention is "Jesus condemns the Pharisees" saying they will suffer most of all. In so many miracles throughout the passages I read, they're there being annoying and criticising the Lord, Jesus.

    The final paragraph quoted above, though, explains why this strange portrayal of them may have occured. Political reasons: the writers of the new testament wanted to make the Jews look bad - and thus is truly is anti-semitic.

    However, what is wrong is the interpretation of those who wrote the bible. It is not a slur on Jesus, who was friends of these people. But this example reveals how subjective and incorrect the bible may be - and in turn shows how dangerous it would be to take its readings literally, given that it's a bunch of people out to paint a bad picture of the Jews for political gain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vapid slut magician)
    No.

    Why are you so desperate to denounce the New Testament as some anti-semitic hate rag?
    Calling the New Testament anti-semitic is by far not an overstatement; fundamentalists Christians often take the word of the Bible verbatim, infusing it's anti-Jewish sentiments.

    It was necessary in the political climate of the time to marginalise Jews, allowing for greater growth of Christianity. It is always necessary to remember that the New Testament was written by humans - therefore (even if you do believe in God, etc.) are subject to the social and political influences of the time. The marginalisation and demonisation of Jews had to be done in order for Christianity to flourish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    First question: WHAT IS THE FOLLOWING RELIGION. I literally don't know whether the following makes her:
    - Typical Church of England
    - Typical Roman Catholic
    - A fundamentalist of one of those two, rather than typical
    The leaflets are an edition of the Gospel of Mark found in the Bible, produced by the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (the UCCF), which is an interdenominational, broadly evangelical Christian student movement. The UCCF is associated with most of the Christian Unions in the UK - it is probably a member of the CU who has given you the leaflet and they would love you to ask them any questions you have.

    In brief, I don't think the Gospel of Mark is antisemitic, in that it does not promote hatred of Jews based on their ethnicity. It does however portray Jesus as critiquing the Judaism and the religious leaders of his day, and being persecuted by some of them and put to death (but also put to death by the Romans too!) so it isn't exactly pro-Judaism. But then why should it be?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vapid slut magician)
    I told you in the box she was Evangelical. C of E and Catholic Christians don't believe in the necessity to witness in the way Evangelicals do. You should watch that programme on iplayer about the 13 year old Evangelical Christian- might explain more what they're about. They basically believe that everyone's going to Hell and that God has commanded them to bring His Word to others in order to save them.
    There are a lot of evangelicals in the C of E! Including several of my coursemates.

    Can I offer a clarifying definition of an evangelical? I don't think Deborah (BBC girl) is a representative example. Evangelicalism is a theological movement which encompasses a lot of different Christian denominations, but historically has 5 important facets.
    Evangelicals are biblicist in that they view the Bible as authoritative and divinely inspired - although readings of different passages does differ among evangelicals, and it is a gross oversimplification to say that all evangelicals take all of the Bible "literally", whatever that means.
    Evangelicals are Christocentric in that God's self-revelation is seen most clearly in Jesus Christ, and the Bible's purpose is primarily to point to Jesus Christ.
    Evangelicals are crucicentric in that the cross is seen as central to Jesus' mission and to the Christian faith. Evangelicals may debate what exactly happened at the cross, but Jesus' death is seen by all evangelicals as being for our sins in some sense.
    Evangelicals are conversionist in that they believe in the need to share the gospel so that people can come to believe in the gospel - otherwise they will not be saved. Views on what happens to those who never hear the gospel differ.
    Evangelicals are activist in that they place an emphasis on displaying the gospel through effort - through foreign and local missions, social action, community involvement and their lifestyles.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    Doing some research on them now, and found this which I find interesting:

    Basically back then Judiasm was split into 4 different sub-groups of which the Pharisees were one group, so you were right to say that. But this is information on the group:

    "However, Josephus indicates that the Pharisees received the backing and good-will of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees associated with the ruling classes."

    That implies that although just one group of many, they were by far the largest, and could be interpreted as representing the Jewish population as a whole.
    There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Pharisees around - the internet may not be the best source.
    Interestingly, one of my tutors, Prof. Roland Deines, has written a lot about the Pharisees - his article ‘The Pharisees Between “Judaisms” and “Common Judaism”’ in Carson, D.A., Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism – 2 Vols (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) pp.I:495ff. might be accessible via your library and is pretty good!
    The Pharisees were not a majority group in first-century Palestine, and were a movement which sought the restoration of Israel by national observance of the Law of YHWH, which they hoped to achieve by systematizing the law into oral teaching. Jesus' claims to authoritatively interpret the Law outside of the structures set up by the Pharisees brought them into conflict with him. Interestingly though, the Pharisees are not implicated directly in the death of Jesus in the Gospels - but rather the "Chief Priests" and religious rulers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erradhadh)
    Calling the New Testament anti-semitic is by far not an overstatement; fundamentalists Christians often take the word of the Bible verbatim, infusing it's anti-Jewish sentiments.
    Might point is that even taken verbatim it's not anitsemitic. Taking anything out of context means it loses it's correct meaning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMonkey)
    Well I'm definitely reporting that.

    Will you shut up and stop derailing this thread please?

    I made my point of view clear in order to subscribe to the thread because it seemed interesting if you're just going to turn it into how monumentally brainy you are and how stupid everyone else is then I think I'll unsubscribe.

    Oh and by the way I gave the OP legal advice as well. Thanks.
    well report me for spam then and stop retaliating with more spam... why is that hard? :confused:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    there a three men
    a jew a black man and a white man.
    they all get one wish, the white man asks for securities, the black man asks for a load of money. The jew asks for some imitation jewelry and a taxi ride to the black man's house.
    from malcolm x's autobiography
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vapid slut magician)
    Might point is that even taken verbatim it's not anitsemitic. Taking anything out of context means it loses it's correct meaning.
    It is not out of context; there are many passages that openly condemn Pharisees - a precursor sect to Rabbinic Judaism, the root of most sects of modern Judaism. The Pharisees did persecute followers of Jesus Christ, but the following passage from Luke 11 plainly persecute those who acknowledge their Pharisee forefathers:

    Luke 11:37 Now when he had spoken, a Pharisee asked him to have lunch with him. And he went in and reclined at the table. 38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that he had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. 39 But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. 40 You foolish ones, did not he who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you. 42 But woe to you, Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God--but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 43 Woe to you, Pharisees! For you love the front seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places. 44 Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it." 45 And one of the lawyers said to him in reply, "Teacher, when you say this, you insult us too." 46 But he said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. Consequently, you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers, because it was they who killed them and you build their tombs. 49 For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill, and some they will persecute, 50 in order that the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation.' 52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered." 53 And when he left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question him closely on many subjects, 54 plotting against him to catch him in something he might say.
    This is just one section of the Bible that condemns those that frequent synagogues - Jews. Nevertheless, most modern readings of the New Testament do omit these from literal understanding, other than the fundamentalists that I mentioned before.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.