Passion Misplay: Yes, Jews probably really did kill Jesus.

Slate ^ | September 17, 2003 | Steven Waldman

[Blzbba]

Well, I suggest that you read my posts a little more clearly before commenting on mine.

[Blzbba]

I'm tired of some Christians being anti-Semitic due to the actions of people who've been dead for 2000 years.

This is not difficult to understand, if you'd read my posts before commenting. In fact, your sentiment of "What's that got to do with anything?" is exactly mine towards Christians who still harbour ill will toward modern Jews for a crime their ancient ancestors committed.

[Eva]

I think that blaming modern day Jews for the crucifixion is like blaming all of us for slavery. It's a cause celebre for the respective minority groups, gives them a reason for their own bigotry and for some of the spokespeople, a raison d'etre. (I don't know what inspired the French colloquialisms this morning, the just seemed appropriate when speaking of liberal elitists)

[MalcolmS]

>>>This is not, after all, ancient history. It wasn't until 1965—not 1465!—that the Catholic Church officially got around to declaring that the entire Jewish race shouldn't be held guilty of deicide. <<<

Why did anyone have to wait for a Pope to say it? Too bad everyone involved didn't listen to Jesus when, in one of his last utterances before giving up the spirit, said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

And who are we not to forgive those Jesus has already forgiven. In fact, one of the parables Jesus told clearly illustrated that if we do not forgive others, we would not be forgiven!

[Spok]

I'm a Catholic, but I take no responsibility for the Inquisition. I'm white, but I take no responsibility for slavery. I'm an Aryan, but I take no responsibility for the Holocaust. Because this is America. We don't kill an entire family off for the crimes of one member of the family, and we don't hold an entire race responsible for the acts of a few. It's called INDIVIDUALITY, and we fought a war to base our culture on that ideal.
It's the left that wants to impose collective responsibility on white Christian males for every ill that's befallen mankind for the last 1,000 years, but when you generalize about an ethnic group based on the misbehavior of a few, it's racism, pure and simple. Every person has the absolute moral right to be judged solely on the content of his/her character. Period. Collective blame is always wrong, regardless of whose agenda it promotes.

[Cacophonous]

Well, I agree with you there. Frankly, I've always thought that reports of Christians blaming Jews for things that happened 2000 years ago were overstated, thought it was a lot of hooha. Now, maybe if I were Jewish, I would have seen something different. In any event, noone I know personally thinks that much about it.

[muawiyah]

There are Jews who worry incessantly about being killed by Christians, but then there are others who are able to differentiate between the Nazis and everybody else.

The Nazi party, not Christianity, is responsible for murdering more Jews.

[JoeSchem]

Jesus died for all of our sins. That means that all of us are complicit in killing him -- and redeemed, through the mystery of faith, by his death and resurrection.

[muawiyah]

I read your post(s). You recommended nothing other than a total revision of the Apostles Creed and suggested that ALL Christians are adherents of it.

First off, the Apostles did not need the so-called "Apostles Creed", and not all Christians are hung up on the thing. On the other hand, there's more to Jesus than "goody-two-shoes" sorts of things ~ antinomianism dwells exclusively on that stuff, and if frustrated or ignored by real Christians they have sometimes run naked through the village streets.

[Blzbba]

I read your post(s). You recommended nothing other than a total revision of the Apostles Creed and suggested that ALL Christians are adherents of it.

I've recommended nothing and have not even mention the Creed, nor suggested that 'ALL' of anyone do anything. First off, the Apostles did not need the so-called "Apostles Creed", and not all Christians are hung up on the thing. On the other hand, there's more to Jesus than "goody-two-shoes" sorts of things ~ antinomianism dwells exclusively on that stuff, and if frustrated or ignored by real Christians they have sometimes run naked through the village streets.

There you go again, spouting off some more definitions of your pet word of the day, 'antinomianism'. I'm happy that you're familiar with the term and impressed that you spelled it correctly, but again I question why you insist on mentioning it, given the context of this thread.