Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Why Are Jews Persecuted By Christians If They Were The Instruments Of Humankind's Salvation?
93 Answers
I do not understand why the Jews have been, and are still being in some quarters, persecuted by Christians.
Jesus was a Jew, as were his entire family, the people to whom he preached, and all of his followers and supporters. He probably would not recognize the Gentile religion created in his name by Paul of Tarsus, another Jew. Christian tradition blames the Jews for not recognizing Jesus’ divinity, and also blames them for his ignominious death by crucifixion. However, according to Christian theology, Jesus’ death was pre-ordained by God as the means through which the sins of the world were removed and humankind was saved. So why persecute those who were alleged to have brought about this wonderful salvation? Should they not instead be applauded for carrying out God’s intentions and helping save humankind? Similarly Judas Iscariot: if he really did betray Jesus, was he not simply carrying out God's wishes?
Jesus was a Jew, as were his entire family, the people to whom he preached, and all of his followers and supporters. He probably would not recognize the Gentile religion created in his name by Paul of Tarsus, another Jew. Christian tradition blames the Jews for not recognizing Jesus’ divinity, and also blames them for his ignominious death by crucifixion. However, according to Christian theology, Jesus’ death was pre-ordained by God as the means through which the sins of the world were removed and humankind was saved. So why persecute those who were alleged to have brought about this wonderful salvation? Should they not instead be applauded for carrying out God’s intentions and helping save humankind? Similarly Judas Iscariot: if he really did betray Jesus, was he not simply carrying out God's wishes?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Infomaniac. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Even if I did have examples, and I think I do, it would be difficult to prove that they were genuine examples, since you don't know these people personally, and presumably I would need to delve into their faith to a great extent to establish it beyond your doubt. But someone who follows the Gospel first and the rest of the Bible (including all the Pauline epistles) second would, in my opinion, be a follower of Christ rather than a Pauline.
It doesn't overly matter, because whatever faith they had I'd think it wrong.
It doesn't overly matter, because whatever faith they had I'd think it wrong.
So, it sounds like we're waiting on Spoony to finish moving house and find that book.
I'd be interested to learn whether any persecution began prior to the emperor Constantine adopting Christianity?
My working theory, for now, is that it was a case of the leader developing religious fervour 'spontaneously' and his people following suit in the manner that they still copy celebrities, to this day. Christianity therefore gets wrapped up in his personal conquests of other nations and anyone who got in their way ended up being persecuted and repressed. It doesn't require orders from the top, it just happens where people mix and fail to get on.
Although it's stereotyping to think of Christians as basically nice 'do unto others' type people, that's the reason I cannot envisage them initiating persecution against Jews in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century. Then again, my historical knowledge of the region is pretty feeble and I would read more myself, if I could spare the time. A territorial conflict between the Christian 'early adopters' and the indigenous population would have been enough.
(plus ca change...)
I'd be interested to learn whether any persecution began prior to the emperor Constantine adopting Christianity?
My working theory, for now, is that it was a case of the leader developing religious fervour 'spontaneously' and his people following suit in the manner that they still copy celebrities, to this day. Christianity therefore gets wrapped up in his personal conquests of other nations and anyone who got in their way ended up being persecuted and repressed. It doesn't require orders from the top, it just happens where people mix and fail to get on.
Although it's stereotyping to think of Christians as basically nice 'do unto others' type people, that's the reason I cannot envisage them initiating persecution against Jews in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century. Then again, my historical knowledge of the region is pretty feeble and I would read more myself, if I could spare the time. A territorial conflict between the Christian 'early adopters' and the indigenous population would have been enough.
(plus ca change...)
Well, there we go. The Christians were too busy -being persecuted- by the empire to have much opportunity to persecute any Jews.
Given that we have the embarassing distinction of being the nation that invented the concentration camp, it is uncomfortable to have, also, the oldest written record of persecution of Jews, to date (that this thread has traced, anyway), being under 12th century Norman rule.
Given that we have the embarassing distinction of being the nation that invented the concentration camp, it is uncomfortable to have, also, the oldest written record of persecution of Jews, to date (that this thread has traced, anyway), being under 12th century Norman rule.
And speaking of concentration camps this from Wiki....
//The Caliph of Baghdad, al-Muqtadi [1075–1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja, [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck …//
Familiar? :o(
I await Spoonboy's information with interest.
//The Caliph of Baghdad, al-Muqtadi [1075–1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja, [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck …//
Familiar? :o(
I await Spoonboy's information with interest.
// Familiar? :o(
Disturbingly so.
While reading more into the background of this I found an interesting nugget - a potential sidetrack to this thread, if we're not careful - on http://
(Excerpt from Sicut Judaeis)
//Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.//
If I apply spin to that, it sounds like Pope Innocent III (who decreed this) is introducing sumptuary laws which may have led to the introduction of the burkha, hijab, niqab etc.! (I keep hearing it said that there's nothing specific about female dress code in the Qur'an but I could be wrong about that, as well).
Disturbingly so.
While reading more into the background of this I found an interesting nugget - a potential sidetrack to this thread, if we're not careful - on http://
(Excerpt from Sicut Judaeis)
//Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.//
If I apply spin to that, it sounds like Pope Innocent III (who decreed this) is introducing sumptuary laws which may have led to the introduction of the burkha, hijab, niqab etc.! (I keep hearing it said that there's nothing specific about female dress code in the Qur'an but I could be wrong about that, as well).
Hypognosis, good link. Thank you. Evidence, if any were needed, that men don’t only allow religion create to create division – in some instances they ensure that it creates division. Potty!
As for the burqa, I don't think the pope was responsible for that. This is the sort of thing that encourages its dubious popularity:
//O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way)//
The same verse in other interpretations reads thus:
//O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them.….//
… which is not nearly so severe – so it’s a matter of take your choice really – and unfortunately some choose the former which works very well in the midst of a desert sandstorm but has no practical use anywhere else.
As for the burqa, I don't think the pope was responsible for that. This is the sort of thing that encourages its dubious popularity:
//O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way)//
The same verse in other interpretations reads thus:
//O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them.….//
… which is not nearly so severe – so it’s a matter of take your choice really – and unfortunately some choose the former which works very well in the midst of a desert sandstorm but has no practical use anywhere else.
I spent a while believing it was actually a quite sensible hair-hygeine precaution, for hot countries, women being more sociable and prone to being (literally) heads together in intense conversation.
I was disabused of this notion by some film or other where it was pointed out that the veil is only used outdoors. I've seen debate shows where British converts describe how they like it, in preference to being ogled at all day but I pity them like I would anyone who'd submitted to some kind of external programming, because I'm sure their husbands are of the same mind.
Meanwhile, if some joker tried to market a car tarpaulin with a slit for the windscreen, they'd be clapped in irons for incitement, or some such, wouldn't they?
I was disabused of this notion by some film or other where it was pointed out that the veil is only used outdoors. I've seen debate shows where British converts describe how they like it, in preference to being ogled at all day but I pity them like I would anyone who'd submitted to some kind of external programming, because I'm sure their husbands are of the same mind.
Meanwhile, if some joker tried to market a car tarpaulin with a slit for the windscreen, they'd be clapped in irons for incitement, or some such, wouldn't they?
It’s not only the face – many wear gloves too rendering their whole body invisible to the outside world – and it never ceases to amaze me when western women who marry Muslims voluntarily take to the veil. No one raped them before they took to wearing the oppressive ‘uniform’. Funnily enough a lot of suicide bombers and other terrorists are converts, so perhaps converts have an intense desire to demonstrate that they’re ‘real’ Muslims. Bit like ex-smokers – they’re usually the most vocal in condemning others for smoking. Can’t help thinking that a lot of these ladies are playing at being Muslims though. I’m convinced that had they met a man of another religion, they would just as readily have adopted that.
Got a flight to catch. Must dash. Bye for now.
Got a flight to catch. Must dash. Bye for now.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.