I’m Jewish and have been told very angrily that I killed Jesus more than once. It’s fun.
It’s all fables.
Religion ruins everything.
I really do hate religion. Scourge against humanity.
You have people like this saying actual antisemitic shit over and over and over again and they are elected to office.
And then it’s people that want the country of Israel, to at least pretend to try to not kill scores of civilians and they get called antisemitic.
That is entirely Israel’s fault. I say that as a Jew.
My work often takes me to the Antwerp diamond quarter (especially the vault buildings) and the sentiment I see there is that your general Jewish person facepalms every time they hear Israel is in the news again and they aren’t happy this makes life more difficult for them by simple association. Most of these people just want to live their lives and have no association, fealty or favor for the country of Israel, beyond the area it resides in hosting holy sites.
Dunno about the traditionally dressed Hasidic Jews in Antwerp though, I’ve been in and around the Diamond Quarter for 25 years now and I don’t think I’ve ever even got as much as a hello or acknowledgement of existence from any of them walking down the street. They seem to be a rather insular bunch.
Ironically, a lot of Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionists for religious reasons. There are even Hasidic groups that do not recognize Israel as a nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism#Groups_which_do_not_recognize_Israel
So they seem to be the good kind of insular. Live and Let Live.
Pretty much. That and they’re the sort of “I’m an evangelical Christian because my mother was and her mother was” types and don’t think much more about it than that.
It is perpetually disappointing the extent to which so many people who claim to be Christians fail to understand even the CliffsNotes version of the Gospel.
Jesus’ arrest was probably bound to happen sooner or later though. As noted Biblical scholar Andrew Zaltzman has often pointed out, Pontius Pilate was a law and order administrator, and Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.
Also, without Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, he wouldn’t have died and been resurrected, saving everyone’s souls. So shouldn’t Marjorie be thanking Jews for that?
And when the flying spaghetti monster flew out of his butthole and pasta for our sins we were saved a second time. Making humans the most saved beings in this universe at least.
All in the span of 5,000 years, too.
To be fair, we probably needed it.
That was only yesterday, image what his Noodly One will do today.
Tbh, Jesus probably didnt exist anyways.
They started writing about him almost 100 years after his supposed death, and AFAIK theres zero proof outside the bible that he existed.
This is patently false and easily disprovable with a cursory google. Please do not spread misinformation.
Prove it instead of casting doubt.
You’re the wrong party here, your search will prove it.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified
So…
- A preacher lived around that time.
- His name was ridiculously common.
- He was baptized.
- He was crucified.
Notably NOT:
- He was born of a Virgin.
- He was the son of a supernatural deity.
- He performed supernatural acts.
- He was resurrected.
To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.
Let’s try the same argument today… “A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?
This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.
I don’t think anyone here claimed historical Jesus was the son of the magical sky wizard.
Some folk heros are based on historical people; some aren’t.
The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.
What makes a better lie:
- A 100% fabrication
- A lie that selects elements from reality, and invents parts of the whole story
Muhammad was also a known historical figure, as was Joseph Smith.
I asked for you to provide some kind of proof.
You provided a statement that scholars have faith.
I am being serious here, where is the contemporary record of Jesus existing?
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
I would argue that both of us ought to be smart enough to be able to look at the “proof” and recognize a lot of it is personal faith.
You believe what you want.
There isn’t any and even the discussions in the wiki on the historicity of jesus are full of arguments to authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-Jesus_existed-4
It can be summed up as, “People who have made their livelihood around a potentially fictitious persons of history all claim that said person exists because reasons.”
this conversation is split into so many parts im just trying to chase down this one key point: it’s not enough to say “well I don’t believe them” - I want to be proved wrong here, for my own education. But I want to be proved wrong - with proof. Not just a throwaway comment of “they have not met my (undefined, and unexplained) threshold of proof”
What do you have to show that Jesus didnt exist as a real human? That isn’t your own belief or thought process as your primary source?
Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the “everyone definitely agrees that he existed” side of the argument…
However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.
buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have?
Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.
The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory.
Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?
It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.
A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.
He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.
Buddy if we collected nickels from anthropologists every time they got something wrong we’d all be rich.
Tacitus mentions Christian’s and their namesake. He mentions Pontus.
He does not mention these things together as a cohesive event.
He is writing about something else.
The earliest set of Pauline epistles have a consensus dating around 50, 20 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
The gospel of Mark has consensus dating to 70, 40 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
Multiple Jewish and Roman historians wrote about the existence of Jesus, who weren’t all getting their information from the Bible. There is a long and well-sourced Wikipedia article on this.
Apparently, Christians are not the only ones who lack basic knowledge about the history of Jesus …
Neat theory
…and Pontius Pilot was one historical figure we can prove exists. In letters from Rome telling him to stop genosiding so many Jews. We are supposed to believe that if this really happened, such a guy cared what the Jews thought, and would give them a choice on who to kill? Really? He would have killed Jesus, the other guy, and the crowd for good measure.
It’s clearly written to absolve Rome of any guilt since they founded the religion and all of the source material is more likely attributed to Mithra and Simon Magus.
This. Why don’t these people understand that Jesus died for EVERYONE’S sins?
WE ALL KILLED JESUS. Accept Him and repent.I never killed anyone though. That’s just emotional manipulation.
What you don’t think you’re a sinner for… checks notes …being born?
I feel like the stigma of sin is vastly overplayed when it’s just an element of being human. Adultery and murder are the same as existing? Alrighty, almighty!
In a wider sense, just by shopping in the supermarket or owning a cellphone, you are participating in worldwide exploitation and mass murder.
Sounds like you’re not very good at being a zombie or a pirate then.
Oh, you’ve got the wrong idea.
I don’t eat brains, I prefer other intellectual properties.
You gotta be mentally ill to believe this shit.
Removed by mod
I never asked him to do that and I don’t particularly want to go to an afterlife filled with sanctimonious Christians, so I’ll take the L, thanks.
Valhalla seems pretty chill, I’ll look forward to seeing you there… or maybe I’ll go chill with my pa in the sky people’s city. Honestly, I think I’d probably want to be an afterlife tourist… I wonder how early I need to book that.
I don’t want to go on forever. It sounds awful. Imagine every boring moment in your life and multiply it by infinity.
If Jesus died for our sins then we’re letting him die in vain by not sinning.
sin for Jesus friend.
I’m going to spill my seed for Christ.
You all can have your little LARP and potluck, but kindly leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. I get that the world sucks and thinking someone will give you cookies for taking all the shit rich folks pile on you day after day is appealing, but it’s just excusing your own exploitation. I’m not about that life.
Na
Make me, pussy.
Speak for yourself.
Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.
Guilty of what? Insulting the Jewish Religion and trying to reform it? That wasn’t a crime in the Roman Empire.
I don’t understand this headline. If you believe the Bible how is it it a myth that the Jews handed over Jesus to be killed?
You have to pay attention, the headline isn’t talking about the Jews killing Jesus, but rather HANDED OVER which is precisely what happens in Mathew 26:47.
There’s no confusion about why Jewish leadership arrested and handed him over either, they were involved in a conspiracy to do that in order to get him killed. This is blatantly clear in Mathew 26:3.
I absolutely despise MTG but surely I’m not the only whose noticed that this whole article is twisted?
Because “Jewish leadership” isn’t the same thing as “all Jews”.
It wasn’t back then, and it isn’t now.
Implying that they are is exactly the reason why we are somehow not allowed to criticise the STATE of Israel without being labeled an anti-semite.
The Jews didn’t hand over Jesus. A HANDFUL of Jewish state leaders did.
The Jews aren’t committing active genocide in Gaza as we speak. A handful of Israeli state leaders are, and using their faith to justify it.
The Jews didn’t hand over Jesus. A HANDFUL of Jewish state leaders did.
This. Someone who had amassed enough of a following while calling out authority figures for hypocrisy, greed, and corruption is going to make some very particular enemies.
That was 2000 years ago. She’s blaming Jews right now.
The woman is batshit crazy but my comment wasn’t really about her; rather how the headline is about one thing while the article itself is about something different.
headline is about one thing while the article itself is about something different
It’s antisemitic to blame “The Jews” collectively for handing Jesus to the Romans. The people who handed him over were Jewish, but then, so were Jesus and most of his followers. Most jews at the time, and obviously all jews since then had no involvement in the matter. But there is a long history of blaming all jews for the death of Jesus.
If MTG had said “Jewish leaders” handed Jesus to the Romans, there wouldn’t have been potential antisemitic implications. But she said “the Jews” did it, which can be interpreted as antisemitic.
Because it’s a grievance Christians love to bring up to justify and incite antisemitic violence.
There are no systems of power this act set into motion. There’s no way to resolve this grievance. It’s at its deepest core a call for pogroms.
Okay, but so what? People who are alive now and have had nothing to do with any of that (made up nonsense, btw) should tolerate these comments why? What’s even the point of bringing it up? She’s a U.S. congresswoman ffs, not a religious scholar. Her only point in doing this is to create an “other” to hate, and I hate that about conservatives the most. The underlying conservative identity is based on nothing but hatred of some boogeyman, which conveniently changes each election cycle or generation.
deleted by creator
We seriously need to ban religion from politics, policy making, and any matters that have to do with making rules for society. Religion should just be a personal matter, and never mentioned in public by people who need it.
The Romans get a pass for some reason.
Realistically, nobody was going to blame the dominant culture that ended up spreading the plague, I mean, Christianity.
Well Pilate DID literally wash his hands of the whole thing. Plus blaming the Romans undermines the whole “If he did nothing wrong why didn’t he comply with law enforcement?” narrative.
The Romans get a pass for some reason.
The Romans are gone and their Empire has been dead for longer than anyone has been alive. The Jewish people are still around and have their own State…which is continually in the news because they keep behaving like they still live in the Old Testament.
https://youtu.be/qmFhsts8WC4?si=Cgh_oQo71FcYIZc6
excuse to post some sopranos
Jesus was a Jew named Joshua who was against money lending in the temple.
That’s the historically accurate Jesus though, and not the M16 wielding anti-Semite white Jesus, who’s look seems to say “WTF IS A KILOMETER!!!” as eagles swoop on high.
You know, fake Jesus.
To MTG: you’re white and white people owned slaves, so you’re directly responsible for slavery.
I’d believe it for MTG. She certainly seems the type to want to return to “the old ways”.
The amount of dumb in that assertion.
It hurts my head.
I’m just so exhausted.
It is exhausting, but at least it gives me an opportunity to laugh at this crazy lady, as long as I don’t spend too much time thinking about all the other people who agree with her.
Is she thanking them? Jesus had to die for Christianity to exist.
Everything about Jesus is a fable so why call out this part specifically as fable?
Fableception?
So wait. Given the Republicans just ‘trapped’ the Democrats into voting for the stupid ‘working definition of Antisemitism’ as a federal guideline, can we flip the table and trap them into a vote to censure/eject her from Congress?
I’d bet there’s a non-zero headcount among the Republicans who’d be happy to boot her, and if not there’s a lot of headlines to run about the “GOP defends virulent anti-Semite in own party”
If we assume Jesus was historically real - let me be clear that I don’t really care who was responsible for his death 2000 years ago. (which Christians believe was required for their own salvation anyhow).
I have never understood why anyone would hold modern Jews (or any Jews at all that weren’t present and involved) responsible for Jesus’ death.
Having said that, I have grown up believing it was more or less true that yes the Jews did kill Jesus. (But again, so what?)
This post spurred me to do some duck duck going. I found these two articles interesting. At least I can see the basis for it now. For anyone else coming at this with a similar understanding:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-killed-jesus/
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134264425/Pope-Jews-Are-Not-Responsible-For-Killing-Jesus
I will say that the first article does a pretty good job of setting up the case for why people believe that. (Unlike the second which kinda surprisingly acts like no one should ever have thought that in the first place.)
Again, even if every person involved in Jesus’ death had been Jewish, and even if Jesus were the actual earthly incarnation of God as his son, I have never seen any basis to lay this at the feet of modern Jews. But now I know more about it than I did.
Same people who want to blame news are vehemently against reparations.
Yeah there’s a weird dichotomy there - or maybe actually a consistency, but I came at it differently in my head even though I didn’t mention it.
I also think the basis for so much opposition to CRT (as a lightning rod), the shit in Florida and elsewhere (trying to remove the racial component in textbooks from even things like the Rosa Parks incident), and otherwise denying or trying to hide aspects of US history that deal with how we treated black folks is because modern white folks (of which I am one) include a contingent (of which I am not one) who somehow think they are going to be held personally responsible if they admit all these things happened and continue to happen.
There’s a heavy overlap (IME) between this group, and the group who also continues to claim modern Jews are somehow culpable for the death of Jesus. I feel like their Jew hating almost compels them to try pretending racism has been dead for decades or more, because on some level they expect to be blamed just like they still blame Jews today.
I think the biggest problem with Reparations is calling it Reparations. I’m a firm believer that generational impacts have been felt and continue to be felt by the black community after not just slavery outright, but Jim Crow, and racist influences on laws and mores that remain in effect today. I believe it’s reasonable and ethical for our nation to make some attempt to compensate for that. I don’t think it will ever pass while it’s called Reparations. That term is as much of a lightning rod to the right as anything else you could name, IMO.
I would support of a reparations package, and would tend to vote for politicians who put such a package together or promised to do so. (making a lot of assumptions about what the rest of their politics would look like) But step one would be a unified party of Democrats willing to support it in congress, and step two after that unlikely step would be for there to be not enough R in congress to shoot it down. (also unlikely)
So I don’t know what the details of a reparations package would look like, and I sadly think we’ll never see it successfully navigate our political system, and worse, I don’t think it’s only because the kinds of folks who hate the Jews would come out against it. I think a lot of folks in congress would vote against it on what they felt were pragmatic or politically expedient reasons before it could ever stand a chance.
I don’t know if it could be done by EO. That would be interesting to see.
Reparations are a different matter entirely. I’ve been against them, but not because I don’t think our society has no debt to repay to the descendants of slaves. Quite the contrary, I think there has been generational harm that we need to be aware of and try to make up for.
But reparations gives people the impression that the previous harm can be solved with money, which cheapens it a bit. Plus, there will be people who look at the reparations and say “Racism is over, we paid the bill, here’s the receipt”. The descendants of slaves don’t need a one-time payment, they need a society where everyone is truly equal. We’re not there yet.
I can’t argue with your points, they are good ones.
Here’s how I try to diplomatically look at it from the receiving end- If you believe in a world where your god has a plan, then part of his plan was to create Jews for the purposes of killing Jesus. Because of that, every Jew who ever existed, exists and will exist is only around so that Jesus’ death would happen. Therefore, all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus.
And before you say it, no, apparently Jesus wasn’t a Jew. He was the first Christian.
For sure - if Jesus had to die for Christian salvation, they should be treating modern Jews like their personal heroes if they must insist on linking them to the event.
Plus, it was the Romans that actually executed him.
Why don’t these people hate Italians?
Pasta.
So that there’s no misunderstanding the Jews didn’t directly kill Jesus, the Roman Empire did. The Jews of the time weren’t universally response for Jesus death either, much less the Jews existent today. If that isn’t enough Christians are missing the whole “Sons aren’t responsible for the Sins of their Fathers” thing the Bible has going on.
With that out of the way…
The problem with that first link is that Jewish Leadership, who are the ones that conspired together to have Jesus arrested and delivered to a Roman Court, DID have two very good reasons to want Jesus dead and neither of them had anything to do with Heresy.
First, as the article notes, the Jews had a tendency to be unruly so anything that got the general population worked up would bring the Roman Legions down on them and Jesus was definitely getting them worked up with large crowds, loud arguments, and miracles all over the place.
Second, which the article completely skips, Jesus and his teachings were an existential threat to the Jewish Leadership of the time. His teachings not only undermined their Religion but if his teachings were implemented the whole Jewish power structure would become unnecessary and be dissolved. This is blatantly discussed in John 11:47.
Sadly the 2nd link is kinda worthless because there’s nothing in it regarding the Pope’s argument, just that the statement was made. Now I’d go read “Jesus of Nazareth’, Part II” by Pope Benedict XVI but in a fantastic statement about the Catholic Church you have to buy the damn thing! I mean didn’t Jesus kind of have a whole tirade about that?
Anyway, this isn’t mean to be an argument. I just caught your post and was interested in the links so I thought I’d provide some feedback on them.
Anyway, this isn’t mean to be an argument. I just caught your post and was interested in the links so I thought I’d provide some feedback on them.
All good, it was an interesting read. :)
Doesn’t the antisemitism awareness act make criticism of Israel illegal? Maybe her reason for opposing it is stupid but it should be opposed.
Yes, the act itself is bad. This isn’t really about the act.
Doesn’t the antisemitism awareness act make criticism of Israel illegal?
No, it’s pretty toothless as a bill. It is concerning, but for the ambiguous attitudes it reflects more than the legal effects it’ll have.
