Gaetz and MTG aren’t wrong

Understanding fully this not the point you were trying to make, but there probably would be, though I couldn’t swear it would be called the Easter Bunny. Like many other religions, Christianity adopted many of the practices of local cultures. The most famous of these is moving the celebration of Jesus’s birthday (which was probably in August) to coincide with the Winter Solstice. The Easter Bunny is probably rooted not in Christianity’s Jewish roots but rather in the spring festival practices of pre-Christian Europe. So it would probably still exist in some form today without Christianity, unless Islam had subjugated the whole European continent. The Muslims were quite a bit better at rooting out pre-Islamic cultural practices.

 

Ok, I Googled "ornery" and I am back now. We're good.

 

Evil people do evil things - take slavery, for example - and get a way with it because most of the rest of us either condone it or are apathetic. (I could all include Trump, but I want to avoid the TDS accusation.)

 

seems reasonable.

 

That is a factual statement.

 

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

(Multiple - origin not confirmed)

 

I’m curious, if you believe the Bible, how Jews could ever NOT play a role in every facet of Jesus’ life. Jesus was a Jew. His brand of Judaism was too liberal, and presented a threat, to the traditional orthodox. So of course Jews played a role. A Jew, Jesus, was put to death on the Cross (by order of the Romans)

 

Finally!!

 

Also, if you believe biblical atonement theory, it’s kind of bizarre to hold “they killed Christ” against Jews even if you believe they were responsible for his death.

If God sent Christ to the world in human form so that he could be killed to redeem mankind’s sins, him being killed is what God intended to happen. The whole “redeemed by the blood of Christ” thing doesn’t work if Jesus doesn’t get killed.

And to circle back to the original topic, while yes “the Jews were [at least partially] responsible for killing Jesus” is perhaps part of the gospel story, she’s ignoring the second half of that example: using classical antisemitic tropes to characterize Israel or Israelis. Sure some churches may teach that biblical Jewish people contributed to killing Jesus, I’m pretty confident churches (at least those that aren’t just actual white supremacist groups) aren’t really going around calling modern Israel a bunch of Christ-killers.

 

Well, MTG and Gaetz said this bill would criminalize preaching the gospel, so arguably them.

But I suspect that’s more a product of them not finishing reading (or not being able to understand) the sentence rather than them actually believing that the gospel requires attributing the killing of Jesus to modern Israel or Israelis.

 

This is really messed up. Look, here’s what really happened. At the trial of Jesus, Pilate offered to release a prisoner for Passover. The Jews wanted Jesus released, they thought he was just sick with a narcissistic personality disorder. But the person who Pilate released was the robber Barabbas, whose full name, according to ancient authorities, was Jesus Barabbas. When the Jews told Pilate to release Jesus, he misunderstood and released the wrong man. The Jews have been unjustly blamed ever since. But looking at the bright side, due to Pilate’s mistake and the crucifixion we all have a chance to go to heaven.

 

I never heard this story before. Thanks for sharing.

 

I hope you understand that was an attempt at humor by him.

 

I did not. And now I’m sad. I already posted it on Facebook and 4,833 people just liked it.

Edit: this is humor, too, because I don’t have Facebook. Nor would I have a single follower on Facebook.

 

The 4 gospel accounts tell of the few years (approx 3) Jesus taught his disciples who were likely all Jewish, but he also ministered to and healed gentiles as well as Jews (the Roman centurion's favored servant and the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman). During that time he spoke boldly against the hypocrisies of certain religious Jews or the Pharisees who held nominal power granted by the Romans who had control over the entire region.

My knowledge of Roman history of the time is not complete, but I do know there were laws to exclude and expel Jews from the city of Rome and from Judea and Jerusalem in 70CE. The area was renamed Palestine and Jewish presence was not tolerated.

The early followers / disciples of Jesus were all Jewish and Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism. After the crucifixion the apostles gathered and prayed in the courts of the Temple. When expelled from Jerusalem they took the teachings of Jesus across the Roman empire, meeting and teaching in synagogues. The book of Acts speaks of these years and the ministry of Paul, who carried the teachings of Jesus to gentiles. Among some of the original disciples there were some who objected to Paul doing this so in 48/50CE a council was called in Jerusalem to determine if a gentile newly converted to Christianity was obligated to first convert to Judaism and be circumcised before being baptized. It was decided gentiles Christians were not obligated to undergo circumcision or follow the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah.

According to tradition and best current historical scholarship of the time, the 4 gospel accounts had not yet been written. Acts of the apostles records much of what occurred but it was not written, at the earliest, until 60CE, at least 10 years after the council meeting in Jerusalem.

Paul continued to preach to gentiles, eventually ending up in Rome, where Jews were not welcome and one can easily conclude a widening breach between the Jewish Christian sect and the gentile Christians possibly developed. At any rate the split did occur but Christians as well as Jews of whatever sect were not welcome in the city.

There was no overarching Christian authority or establishment in those early years and the familiar theological dogmas and doctrines were not yet determined or established. That would not happen for another century or more, after the Christian authoritarians got cozy with the Roman government and growing Roman Christian church gained the power it needed to make it happen.

The first Roman emperor to be deified was Julius Caesar. Subsequent to him came Augustus, who was the nephew and adopted son of Julius and was proclaimed 'son of god' after his death. The deification and worship of the Caesar's is thought by some biblical scholars to have been a contrasting but significant influence in the development of Christian theology. The Christian doctrines familiar to us today have changed over the centuries and there are still notable differences in atonement and trinitarian theories. I don't want to necessarily wrangle with those issues in this thread, but there is biblical evidence for legitimately questioning the virginal conception of Jesus.

It hinges on whether or not certain scripture in the Bible is true, or had the orally transmitted stories handed down for several decades been embellished into something more spectacular further distancing Christianity from its Jewish roots, and contrasting the truth contained within the life and ministry of Jesus with Roman myths and superstitions, and the 'divine' Caesars.

I don't know. But knowing how in this day and age of instant communication we are beset with conflicting rumors and differing accounts of events in our times, to the point of confusion and violence, I can clearly see how this could happen 2000 years ago.

 

It's weird that Gaetz and Marge did the right thing for the worst possible reason. The Antisemitism Awareness Act is an unconstitutional law. You cannot classify ideas you disagree with, even offensive ones, as per se discriminatory. That is inconsistent with free speech.