A topic long over – jew?

I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions I don’t usually get involved in political subject matter, however, this one over at The Wee Flea – Why is Antisemitism such a Big Issue in the General Election? – I took a closer interest in, notably as it is written by Pastor David Robinson, who is a Christian.

While he looks at a number of examples, and discusses why this practice has no place in society,  he eventually arrives at this conclusion:

There really is no way around this. The primary cause of the increase in antisemitism in the UK is because of the increase of Islam.

Not living in the UK I cannot vouch for the veracity of this comment, and maybe what he writes is correct?

Yet, what he steers clear of is the actual history of antisemitism, and I found this comment somewhat galling:

I have been astounded at how ingrained antisemitism seems to be in many of our European cultures. 

Really? He is astounded?

I have to wonder whether this man, (and no doubt others like him) who claims to be an historian, is so ignorant or is he simply without integrity that he will not  touch on the primary cause of antisemitism we have seen over the past 2000 years?

And while it should be noted there was contempt for Jews before Christianity, and history has several examples, it was Christianity and its proponents who refined it to the levels of hatred that have carried it forward ever since.

Or do people such as Pastor David Robertson think the term ”Christ Killers’‘ was merely an offhand remark not to be taken seriously?



157 thoughts on “A topic long over – jew?

  1. “The primary cause of the increase in antisemitism in the UK is because of the increase of Islam.” Not sure if this is the case as I, too, do not live in the UK, but, what I feel comfortable saying is, the primary cause of Islamophobia in the US is Christianity. As well, the primary movers and shakers in the anti-Semite movement here in the States, i.e. the KKK and Neo-Nazis, are also Christians. Man, those Christians are just fulla hate, ain’t they.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Re “And while it should be noted there was contempt for Jews before Christianity, and history has several examples,And while it should be noted there was contempt for Jews before Christianity, and history has several examples,…” Yes, but … The Romans actually had a fair amount of respect for Jews because of their commitment level and their focus on prophecy. Romans were interested in any religion that could help them prophecy the future. So, it was not universal condemnation of those stubborn Jews. They were a useful scapegoat at times and at others they were a focus of admiration.

    You are spot on in placing Christianity at ground zero of antisemitism, though. This has always puzzled me because blaming the Jews for a Roman crucifixion is a stretch, but thinking that they manipulated the Romans (another stretch) might be possible, but … if Jesus doesn’t die, he can’t be resurrected, and no resurrection, no Christianity. If one believed in this whole scenario, Jesus’s crucifixion has to, just has to, be seen as the will of their god, so the Jews were just doing what their god wanted them too, the same god as Christians say they supposedly believe in.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Bringing reason to the role of ‘Jews’ vs Yahweh cum Love God in the Jesus-killing issue is like bringing a kitten to a knife fight.; it’s just not safe.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I think the flea is making reasons up to suit his own agenda. This row involving the Labour party stems from this What was the row over the definition of antisemitism?
    Labour faced criticism from some Jewish groups after it adopted a working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but left out one of the 11 examples given in the definition, which said it would be antisemitic to claim “that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour”. Labour later adopted all 11 examples.
    Also their leader Jeremy Corbyn has had accusations leveled at him beause of this.
    Has Corbyn himself been criticised over antisemitism?
    Yes, particularly his record when he was a backbencher. For example, Corbyn has said he regrets calling members of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” at a meeting in parliament in 2009. Last year, he accepted he had made a mistake by supporting a graffiti artist after his work, featuring several known antisemitic tropes, was removed from a wall in east London after complaints.
    These are quotes from the Guardian newspaper.
    It is NOTHING to do with a rise in Islam.

    Liked by 2 people

        1. I reckon Robertson is somewhat of an empty vessel with regard his latest post – methinks the Scottish Drama Queen has his kilt inside out and his sporran is irritating his meat an’ 2 veg.

          Liked by 2 people

  4. John Chrysostom, considered perhaps the greatest preacher of the early Church said:

    “The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, rapacious, greedy. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them” (year 379).

    Martin Luther on what should be done to the Jews:









    Liked by 5 people

    1. ‘The jews are the most worthless of men?’ So saith the most prolific preacher?

      Uhh, nooo, jz, as this observation both instantly dismisses your claims of the truth of biblical Christianity, God’s sovereignty over Israel, and your understanding of the most marvelous minds in history: the Jewish people.

      Think this is a stretch? Who has the mightiest army/air force/ per capita? Who has the greatest spy network per capita? Who has the most brilliant forensic minds? (Ahem, Dr, Cyril Wecht, etc)

      Who has the strongest women per capita? Who has the most knowledgeable/ wise/ and powerful statesman per capita? Solomon, Netanyahu, Golda Meir, Ben /Gurion, etc

      Who has the most covenants? Who has the most true real estate rights? Who are the smartest attorneys per capita?

      And of course to your point, who are the most reviled people on earth per capita? There is a reason for this that apparently escapes you.

      But let me add this: the greatest preacher of all times was that illustrious jew, Saul of Tarsus, in the which this world has no equal. A man above men, cubits in superiority in tact, discipline, genius, and power, in word, deed, and in fact.


        1. Nope, doesn’t pass me by in the least. I don’t judge truth by the pitiful acts of miscreants, whatever age they are found in, and I dare say, mankind is still devolving. Read the news lately.

          But is it quite easy to judge liars, thieves, and monsters, who by the way, are found in every nationality. Some simply get more press time.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So you are acknowledging that the root of the antisemitism we have experienced over the past 2000 years can be laid squarely at the feet of Christians/Christianity.

            At least you are honest.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. No man can escape the REASON ark why Christ died once.

          What happened after, is well let’s say, history.

          Are you forgetting the confederacy between Herod and Pilate?

          Are you forgetting the actions of once Saul: then Paul who did an about face re. Stephen?

          All men have a terrible family tree if u go far enough…..


        1. Hi john/
          Honestly I do not know if they said these things, I do know that the words of scripture has much to say regarding such things.

          But I would ask you: WHERE in the writings if the divinely led apostles do we read to maim/destroy/ or kill the Jews? Careful here, because scriptures the opposite.

          It was religious Jews who pelted Stephen with rocks- while he forgave them. Truly enlightening and the essence of Christianity.


          1. Here are just a couple passages Christians have used in the past to justify antisemitism

            John 8:31-47 – Jesus lecturing the Jews that don’t believe him as the children of the devil.

            Matthew 27:25 – This verse has been expounded upon as an admission of all Jews to the murder of Jesus.

            Most of the Book of Acts is about Jewish rejection of Jesus’s teachings. It sets up the fiction of antagonism between the faiths that antisemitic people rely upon.

            Considering how often in the past you’ve used allegory, poetry, and reading between the lines of your holy scripture to justify your position, it’s a little hypocritical for you to abandon it now. The bible contains passages which blame Jews for the death of Christ, among other things. It’s not a stretch to see it get used as fuel for hatred.

            Liked by 4 people

          2. OF OF OF OF the devil.
            Under the influence as it were.

            And Acts tells the truth regarding WHO is responsible for the death of deaths. God was not surprised.

            His foreknowledge (clearly spoken of in Acts 3) does not let the guilty walk free/ yet/ there is a way if men would only be serious about their business…….


          3. Except you’re forgetting Acts 2:22-23. Even Acts 3 is just setting up the notion that the Jews who didn’t repent effectively turned their backs on your deity. And that’s the main justification for early antisemitism. Jews turned their backs on your deity, so like in the OT, they get what they deserve.

            Do you not even read your bible anymore?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. It is my careful analysis Sbiz, and contextual superiority over yours……….which gives me an edge…..when contemplating the whole. I happen to believe every word of scripture. If you do not even give God the courtesy of existing, then it is no surprise you find God and scripture so contemptuous.

            God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Period.


          5. Name calling isn’t a substitute for spiritual weakness on your part, CS. We both know that your correct biblical response should have been to provide the book, chapter, and verse which tells me I’m wrong. Even if I don’t benefit from it as a godless heathen, practicing Christians would need to know where the bible says I’m wrong.

            The closest you’ll find are the verses containing the Beatitudes or any of Jesus’s lectures on duties of care owed to the world. My response to that relevant criticism is that Acts relies heavily on the OT deity’s wrath on the Jewish nation. They abandoned Jesus like they abandoned Yahweh, and so ruin is visited upon them just like in the old times. Antisemites use OT punishments on the Jewish nation as justification that they can do whatever they want to Jews.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. What people like Colorstorm refuse to acknowledge is that, before Jesus and the claims of deity, animosity toward the Jews was little different than towards many peoples who refused to either integrate and/or accept other deities.
            But,until Christians (or Followers of the Way if you prefer) came along as far as I am aware, they were never accused by anyone of murdering a deity (God)

            Liked by 1 person

          7. There’s a good reason why Roman Christians did it. In Roman culture, emperors were deified, so killing a god was tantamount to rebellion. Romans were really good at propaganda.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Book chapter and verse? Really? When I consistently refer to the whole?

            Scripture is not an automatic rifle to be drawn up or used like a dictionary.

            No. It is ALL sharper than any two- edged swords- to the point- imagine the finest honed Japanese epee-

            I need not refer to ‘chapter and verse.’ I cite it all as sufficient- if you had any knowledge of what I am saying- u would agree.


          9. Consistently? You were limiting yourself to Acts a few hours ago. If that’s consistency, then no wonder you’re used to changing your mind so often.

            According to your own book (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Tim. 4:1-5) the bible is supposed to be useful for teaching, correcting, and rebuking. It is not an automatic rifle; you are, however, supposed to use it like an encyclopedia or a dictionary.

            If you can’t even be bothered to pretend to read the bible, why should anyone listen to you about any of it? Even Christians shouldn’t listen to you. You clearly are not qualified to carry on a conversation about your holy book.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Really Biznis? How many times do I hear the lame excuse ‘stop quoting bible…………’

            And dealing with you in the past, and knowing your distaste for scripture, and your thin skinned inability to see the whole of scripture……….please don’t lecture someone who believes every word of the living God, as opposed to others (incl u) who believes none of it.

            I know my audience, I know human nature, I know rebellion, I can spot inflated and pseudo-knowledge three countries away, and I know of a truth that your deconnery is NOT because scripture is peccable, weak, or lacks in any fashion regarding history and truth, but simply because you do not like what it says, especially about you.

            Case dismissed.


          11. This may be the case, CS, however , your religion and some of its proponents are directly responsible for the root cause of antisemitism, which is what the post is about.


          12. Tks ark- I understand what you and the post asserts, but I already noted the ROOT—

            It is impossible that ripe apples stem from a corrupt or poisoned root. Therefore the behaviour or actions of some/even many/ which is inconsistent with grace AS that root/ are something other than what they claim to represent.

            Deception is a btich and hard to spot to an untrained eye. Should I remind you and your friends of the many attempts at art forgery?

            Are we back to that same old story? Hitler was a Christian………….


          13. It is impossible that ripe apples stem from a corrupt or poisoned root.

            Oh, how profound and so very true!
            Thus we return to the source of the rotten/unripe apple.
            The poison root in question is Christianity.


          14. Hmmmm.

            So, the account of my good friend Stephen (Gk- crown) as demonstrated in his invoking God to FORGIVE they who stoned him to death was the rooted rotten fruit?

            Oh God give me such a pure heart toward them who know not what they do…………

            If you sincerely think the ROOT of Christianity is bad stuff, then truly you need eye surgery.


          15. You’re doing a great job demonstrating exactly how antisemitism, racism, human slavery, and all sorts of awful things get excused by Christians over the years. Instead of reading what you tell people you believe, you just pretend that believing what’s in your head is enough. You’re not a champion of Christian scripture; you’re just another dude who thinks he knows more than the deity he pretends to worship.

            Every time you wave your magic belief around like a talisman, that’s what people see. Not someone defending a faith. Just a guy putting his ego ahead of what others might actually believe in.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. “the greatest preacher of all times was that illustrious jew, Saul of Tarsus, in the which this world has no equal. ” ~CS

        Are you claiming that Saul was even greater than Jesus?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. As a child of Adam with posterity, yes he was.

          However, The Lord Christ was in a league of His own/ of which Saul/Paul had no claim.

          The 1st of Romans proves my point- in addition to many Harvard professors who have admitted as much as far as a case made only the bench’ so to speak.

          Flawless logic.


        2. Are you claiming that Saul was even greater than Jesus?

          That is a great and legitimate question Ron! And most naive Chrissians refuse to look deeper into Saul’s/Paul’s actual background and ties/connections with the Herodian Hellenic (Overseas) Jews… which oh by the way were numerous throughout Asia Minor, Cilicia, Syro-Palestine, down to Alexandria. All regions Saul/Paul was very well traveled and educated within Synagogues and Jewish sectors/neighborhoods. Fyi. 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I asked because I’m often left with the impression that Christians prefer to follow the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “The greatest preacher of all times” planted the seed for much of the history of Christian anti-Semitism. Just look to 1Thessalonians where Jews are reviled and written off as sons of Satan, and other such errant nonsense.

        This — along with the Gospels, especially John — is where the Christian enmity against Jews found its earliest expression, and we can still see this garbage quoted admiringly among the alt-right today.

        Spare us your slavish Paul-worship, @ShitStorm, and your attempts at ingratiation — “the most marvelous minds in history” — etc. It won’t wash.

        Christianity co-opted elements of paganism and Judaism, then turned around and demonized pagans and Jews. Brilliant!

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Robertson has had a lot to say about Hitler and the Holocaust, as you may recall from the debate with Matt Dillahunty that he won (sic). He is an historian after all, so he tells us, but is strangely silent on the root cause of antisemitism.

          Liked by 3 people

      1. Ark, before I make my initial general comment on your post below—a post that is smack-dab in my favorite wheelhouse! Woohooo! 🥳 thank you Sir!—I wanted to toss in my two pence here.

        For many modern Chrissians like Robertson, Mel, ColorfulSprinkles, etc, the topic of Antisemitism must be a dance/jig of constant avoiding, slipping in and out of the auditorium, to pop backup in another location with other diversionary subtopics. Why? This way they ignore and/or deny their Faith’s historical fact of exacerbating Antisemitism since at least 68 – 73 CE Palestine, Jerusalem, and Masada.

        As you and I know, and most reasonable intelligent non-Christians know, the Romans (e.g. Cicero) loathed and despised the Jews/Hebrews as early as the 3rd-century BCE. By 35 – 40 CE it began to worsen as an evangelizer from Tarsus named Saul, very bitter toward his rejection (near murder) by Homeland Jews for his heretical teachings and his Herodian ties, spread his venom throughout his Hellenic Gentile churches in northern Mediterranean provinces. For the mere fact that the seeds and roots of all Antisemitism rest squarely in the DNA of Greco-Roman Christianity and by 325 CE when the ideology was made the Empire’s official religion, all subsequent atrocities against the Jews can ONLY be traced back to one area of the world:

        The late Principate Era of Rome and the Herodian-turned-Greek-Christian, the Apostle Paul, followed by the 4th-century CE Roman canonization of the New Testament that cemented Paul’s anger toward Jews into 2,000 years of Christendom.

        Naturally, Robertson, Mel, rainbow shining CS, and their kind, DO NOT want to discuss these facts about authentic history, let alone admit they are perpetuating anti-semitism either indirectly/discreetly or explicitly by their distorted misleading propaganda. No surprise, huh? 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Apparently, after they wouldn’t convert he went after them. His legacy and that of Chysostom are there for all to see. If they choose that is.
        I would venture people such as Robertson would rather not even look.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I would venture people such as Robertson would rather not even look.

          BINGO!!! Robertson, CS, BrainYawn, Mel, and all other evangelical-fundy Chrissian Apologists refuse to seriously consider the ENTIRE historical context of their religion’s/Faith’s soil, seeds, conception, and roots. Reminds me of the ostrich head in the sand. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    2. “… Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. …”

      Sounds about right and par for the course. At least he was candid.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Robertson, like so many other tunnel-visioned Christians, ignore or deny the exhaustive, full historical context of their Faith’s and religion’s history… fathered by the Herodian-Jew-turned-Christologist, Paul/Saul, and perpetuated by the Greco-Roman Church in their Hellenic canonized New Testament with Paul’s Epistles and doctored-up Gospels and Acts—all of which disfavor, even vilify Jews and Judaism. It’s all right there in their “Holy Scriptures™” Ever since Christian Fundamentalists and Biblical Literalists have acted upon what “God” commands them to do.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If I may … just to add to your comment, PT — it is the Jewish people who started this whole “religious” thing. It was a misguided, slightly brainsick Jew that decided to jump ship and switch things around. Unfortunately, many agreed with his rather weird ideas and as a result, look askance at the “originators.” And what do we have as a result? People like weeflea.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Couldn’t agree with you more Nan. You are spot on with the entire conception of the Abrahamic religions. Of course I wanted to specifically address Ark’s thoughts and galling over Robertson’s naivety and tunnel-vision without leaving a 10,000 word comment. 😉 😛

        But your good point reminded me of one scene in a hilarious 2009 film Year One. In this scene Abraham (Hank Azaria) and his son Isaac (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) makes a funny, but true comment about what his Dad is saying about “their lands Yahweh/God has given them” which is why they are constantly at war with everybody, including themselves! Hahahaha!


      1. I remember awhile back (2-3 years ago?) Bart Ehrman covered anti-semitism, but I can’t recall if it was Marcion or Montanus—both were from Asia Minor. I might be getting them confused. Let me go thru my library and resources then I’ll get back to you either this evening (late) or tomorrow AM. Okay? 🙂


          1. Hahaha! You should NOT have told me that. Now I will get distracted and sidetrac…

            GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!!! ⚽🥳👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

            What were you saying Ark? 🤪


          2. Alright, I’m back. Since your and Klopp’s boys played so well tonight, I finished an answer for you and Liverpool right away! Are you impressed?

            I mean YOU, not your football club smart arse. I KNOW you were thinking that. 😉 😈

            Yes, years back Bart Ehrman did indeed discuss Marcion vs. the Jewish Law on his personal blog, and I’ll just start with Ehrman’s take on Marcion and 1st-century Homeland Jews and their Torah.

            Before I dive in to that Ark, I’m sure you are aware—as several others here that frequent your blog—that none of Marcion’s actual penned works-writings survived the heavy axe of Greco-Roman Church Fathers and Archbishops. It should be remembered that Marcion’s theology was and has only been implicitly deduced and deciphered from his opponents, e.g. Tertullian, Polycarp, Irenaeus and their anti-Marcionite commentaries, along with other Early Fathers/Bishops. They eventually denounced and excommunicated Marcion for his Ditheistic theology. IOW, TWO Gods: the merciless, violent, antiquated Yahweh of the Jews versus the forgiving, loving, reconciling God of Jesus’ Gospels and certainly Paul’s Epistles.

            Obviously, Marcion’s antagonizing distinction, that sharp schism ignited, if not exacerbated Anti-semitism among Hellenic Gentile Romans in those first four centuries and sadly beyond, to the present day! 😦 However, in our modern world the rise and cancer of anti-semitism morphed, adapted, went sleuth, and evolved into many different forms of hate, ideology, and crimes against Jews, yes…but also humanity.

            Bart Ehrman writes on his blog:

            Marcion went about showing that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Jesus by writing a book that he called the “Antitheses” (i.e., the “Contrary Statements”). We no longer have the book – and desperately wish we did! It must have been a fascinating exposition of Marcion’s views. We know of the book only because it is referred to and discussed by later opponents of Marcion, principally the heresiologist (i.e., “heresy-hunter”) Tertullian (writing around 200 CE), whose five-volume work “Against Marcion” is our main source of information about Marcion’s life and teaching.

            In the Antitheses, Marcion apparently contrasted what we learn about the God of the Old Testament from what we know of the God of Jesus. As an example: recall what the God of the Old Testament tells Joshua and his armies to do when they were given the Promised Land. They were to capture the city of Jericho (this is in Joshua 6). God instructs Joshua to have the troops march around the city, once a day, for seven days. On the final day they are to march around it seven times, then blow their trumpets, and the walls will “come a-tumblin’ down.” They do so. Then God tells the Israelite troops to enter into the city and to slaughter every man, woman, and child (and all the animals). There are to be no survivors. Even the infants? Yes, even the infants. […]

            The God of the Old Testament is therefore not the God of Jesus. The God of the Old Testament was a god of law, justice, wrath, condemnation, and punishment. The God of Jesus was the god of gospel, mercy, love, forgiveness, and salvation. They are different gods. […]

            Marcion did not have the Old Testament. And he had only eleven books of the New Testament as his Scripture: a form of the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s letters (all except the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, which Marcion may not have known of). Marcion apparently edited all eleven of these books by taking out positive references to the God of the Old Testament. He did so because he thought these books had been altered by scribes who copied them, who falsely inserted passages about the Old Testament God that had not originally been there. So he took them out. As a result he had a truncated eleven-book canon of Scripture.

            This then is one extreme view of the relationship of Jesus to the Jewish law, the view that Jesus had nothing to do with the law, except that he had come to bring salvation for those condemned by the giver of the law. It was Paul who had realized this truth, and so Paul was the great hero of the faith.

            And if you remember Ark, my 5-part blog-series “Saul the Apostate” (or Paul), I showed that Paul was NOT conclusively or perfectly aligned with Jesus’ or Yeshua bar Yosef’s teachings/reformations based on all extant manuscripts. Paul ignores, denies, or maligns Jesus’ broader Sectarian, ascetic Judaism, his Jewish heritage-background and education, and therefore his Nazri/Nasirite/Nasoraean strict reforms (mistranslated to Nazarene or from Nazareth by naive Greeks) for a more purer (immersion), Homeland, Judaism/Messianism and preparation for God’s Kingdom on Earth and His restoration of Israel. Why did Greco-Roman Gentile converts of the first two centuries have such a horribly impossible time understanding and believing Jesus’ Messianism Torah-reforms? At least three reasons:

            #1 — They did not fully understand audibly, nor speak fluently (much less read/write) Jesus’ native-tongue Hebrew and Aramaic, which is NOT an easy language to translate accurately into Koine Greek, especially if one has no clue about rabbinical exegesis and debate, or Second Temple Judaism/Messianism! Impossible really for Roman Greeks! Hence, non-stop tension and conflict.

            #2 — Saul/Paul of Tarsus was most likely (99.9%?) Herodian Jew and was certainly a well-connect Roman citizen BECAUSE OF his Herod/Agrippa familial connections. This perfectly explains his own distaste, impatience, and loathing of radical, ascetic, law-abiding Homeland Jews (Palestine, Nabataea, Syria) he NEVER got along with and who never really welcomed him in their Synagogues.

            #3 — And #1 and #2 compels Bart Ehrman and another acclaimed scholar of Second Temple Judaism and Scriptures I really like: Robert Eisenman. BOTH of Ehrman and Eisenman mostly agree/align regarding these close-knit circle and interlocking cogs of connection between Paul and his Herodian ties, Marcion and his followers, and then later Greek Church Fathers. The latter fan the flames of present anti-semitism causing a larger, prolonged, perpetual schism against the Jerusalem Church/Council and Homeland Judaism/Messianism first, followed by 1,700+ more years of global anti-semitism. 😦

            These few 3-5 overly compelling contextual inferences I’ve mentioned, their matching puzzle-pieces of that time-period, and within the FULL, cumulative, historical evidence and data—both independent evidence (i.e. non-Christian, non-Greek-Roman Christianity) and the traditionally biased, (overused) dependent, too well-known Apostolic and Patristic Greek Church Fathers’ dictation/influence—all comprehensively place the sniper’s cross-hairs (first roots of Anti-semitism) squarely on Saul/Paul, Marcion, and the rest of Earliest Greek Christianity or Christology.

            Does that help and answer your question Ark? Is it at least a start? LOL 😉


          3. I was aware of some of Marcion’s tale and his gospel, but I was specifically looking for something along the lines of what Luther and Chrysostom wrote. But this is good info nonetheless.
            By now, you probably know my views regarding Saul/Paul therefore any speculation on his Jewish links/roots and Roman citizenship I am inclined to take with a pinch of salt.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. To clarify, I was simply curious if Marcion had made any utterances in a similar vein as what John provided from Luther and Chrysostom.

            Of course, if Marcion actually was the pen behind the character Saul/ Paul … well now, that’s a whole new barrel of fish.

            More late night footy this evening (all these mid week xmas season games) so I’ll be watching via satellite on the laptop.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Ahhh, LOVE IT when you are microscopically precise as to what you are fishing for! 😉


            Now that is a great question/hypothesis actually! As you likely know already, inscribing and literature back in the late Iron Age thru the post-Classical Age did NOT concern itself with modern obsessions with facts—that is verifiable facts several times over and in several independent ways—with truth and degrees of plausibilities and/or fiction, mythology, etc. Story-telling that moved, that illicit strong emotions were the hot-selling blockbuster tickets to fame and (forms of) fortune. LOL

            Therefore, just as we Secularists, Atheists, Humanists, etc, often cannot determine with 100% precise, cumulative certainty WHAT ancient history consisted of and all the various influences and components affecting said time-period, neither can the modern religious zealot… no matter HOW charismatic their “faith” might look or sound, they have no such advantage over any other human being on this planet.

            Gratefully and with excitement, that permanent human condition in relation to the ancient past—that includes Christianity or rather Christology—will NEVER be known with unequivocal 100% certainty. Thank all and any of the gods/goddesses you want, it won’t change this condition. 😄 But boy-howdy, it sure does energize more and more questioning, exploring, testing hypotheses, scrutinizing peers, etc, et al!!! THAT I find wonderfully delicious! 😈 That is when world-changing, phenomenal new discoveries move humanity further and further! Hahaha… hopefully toward progress and not extinction. LOL

            Liked by 1 person

  6. As far as I’ve got this far … aren’t Islamics (the inventors of, at least) … Semitics?

    Damn this religion stuff, it gets so confusing—what a good thing there are no contradictions involved and we don’t have to be too picky ‘cos all of them (each of them) is the One True Word of God, the sole single one-and-only unique pathway to Him (all others being false and damned to eternal hellfire).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “Live, and let live” … indeed; until your franchise starts taking profits away from mine — at which point you will be declared a damned Godless interloper out only for bucks and power.

    I still think the laws should be amended such that anyone trying to sell this stuff should be compelled to demonstrate it. You know:

    Put up — or shut up!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. it always puzzles me how people can worship Christ and God, and yet zip right past the fact that “our” God was a jewish god, and “our” savior was a Jewish man supposedly born of Mary who was definitely Jewish as well. And when the Romans crucified Jesus, the Jews got the blame for it.
    Yet there they are, reading a bible that purports to be a “Christian” Bible but one which documents the history and teachings of a Jewish God and an equally Jewish Savior.

    Catholicism was constructed, whole cloth, from Roman teachings and gods and goddesses. They got turned into saints. The pagan holidays were turned into ‘events’ such as Christmas and Easter…

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Colorstorm says: “But let me add this: the greatest preacher of all times was that illustrious jew, Saul of Tarsus, in the which this world has no equal.”

    It’s obvious Colorstorm has just acknowledged maybe without knowingly that Paul was the Father of Christianty not Jesus.

    Antisemitism originated from Abraham and his 2 sons. The Arabs (Muslims) claim Ishmael was “The First Son” with the rights of “The First Son” see https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Firstborn_(Judaism) . And yet the Jews claimed the First son was Issac because he was the son of Abraham’s first wife, Sarah.

    To add insult to injury, the Jews claimed the land they occupied was given to them by their God. And yet all land they occupied , they had to kill its inhabitants first in order to claim it. Oh ! Did I forget to mention their God said they got to keep all women from these lands who had not known a man for themselves but kill everyone else? How nice !

    I’m not saying you should hate anyone, but these might be reasons to not like someone for over 2 thousand years. Please forgive my typos as I’ve had a few Scotches before writing this. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Before Christianity came on the scene and honed this hatred I suspect Judaism would have become an insignificant regional religion.
      The Torah would likely never have had the exposure Christianity gave it and thus its doctrines etc would have been regarded as ridiculous to outsiders, that is even if they were ever exposed to to them.

      Let’s face it, how much does the average individual know of Zoroastrianism?

      Liked by 4 people

      1. …how much does the average individual know of Zoroastrianism?

        Are you asking Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, anyone who is NOT devout Chrissian? Or… are you asking devout, tunnel-visioned Fundy-Evangy Chrissians?

        The answers from the former or latter will easily demonstrate a gross and wide Grand Canyon of authenticated historical context or overused, antiquated and debunked cookie-cutter church apologetics Ark! 😉 Were you asking kcchief1 or ColorfulRainbowSprinkles?


    2. hi chief-
      ‘Acknowledged maybe Paul was the father of Christianity?’

      Uhh, nooo, a big fat NO, as you are forgetting the pedigree of Saul of Tarsus and his experience as a Benjamite Jew, who sat under Reb Gamaliel- who while under law was blameless, (his own words) yet he was lost as fog as to the tenets of Christianity, UNTIL he was taught himself the grace of God, (which is the singular quintessence of Christianity) by The Lord Christ Himself, and the accolades that you attach to him as somehow being ‘father’ he would smite you with kindness for being so clueless.

      The Father of Christianity is no pope, priest, rabbi, shaman, iman, poobub, pastor, reverend, etc, but the Head Himself, which truth is clearly revealed in the New Testament, which is a continuation of the Old, with promises guaranteed, science affirmed, and the old adage confirmed: let God be true, and every man a liar.

      Therefore, all men are liars of sorts, and btw, I hope you and others can see my restraint in not answering the lame insultsof people who revel more in opinions than fact.


      1. All this aside, we are still waiting for you to show some honesty and integrity and acknowledge that antisemitism is firmly rooted in Christian doctrine and some of its foundational proponents.
        Are you prepared to acknowledge this?

        If you come demonstrate any more hand waving or obfuscation I’m sure we can make up our own minds on that score.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Ark/doug. Try to listen carefully.

          Antisemites had their roots in Cain who murdered his brother before murder was a crime. Where did this instruction come from and where did the ears get its command to execute such a thing heretofore never been done?

          Crime and vices do not need religion, yea rather, TRUE Christianity exposes all the fraudulent religions of the world.

          ‘Strap a bomb to your waist and kill the infidels………………’ Sound familiar? No, it is not Christianity which spawns such putrid acts.

          Or ‘Kill the jews.’

          And I don’t care how many times people cite Hitler/ Luther/ or even Billy Graham for influence- people are responsible for their acts and yes, most religions are poison- this is why scripture stands alone- no religion needed- which btw is defined by ‘visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction……’ true religion is pure, and even the most stout of atheists must agree that there is a whole lot of ‘religion’ in nursing homes where the elderly are cared for- not by their family/ but by strangers as it were.

          You want honest? There it is.


          1. There we go … obfuscation and hand waving.
            People are most definitely responsible, for their acts.
            And this is why the proponents of Christianity must accept that their religion is primarily responsible for the antisemitism that has endured for so long.

            That you refuse to acknowledge this fact is telling.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Doug- Antisemites represent something OTHER than Christianity- Not sure why you are asking me to agree with something so foreign to what is good.

            Biblical Christianity is blameless as a hurricane. Read the instruction manual/ then judge for yourself WHO these people are that you find so distasteful.

            I’m sure you could find some who say Tiger Woods is a lousy golfer too………


          3. I appreciate the dialog- I really do ark- but surely even you must know, being somewhat of a botanist- that not all trees share the same root.

            So no, I can NEVER agree that the ROOTS of Semites have been planted by Christians. Never. The words of Christ about seeds/ the words of Paul re. grafting/ the teaching of houses being honorable or dishonorable/ the instruction of people wise or foolish/ blind or seeing/

            But perhaps a more fitting description would be a masquerade ball- people pretending to be something else. I do not wear a mask- nor do many others.




            Liked by 1 person

          5. This is your polite way of conceding my greater point.

            Always a pleasure- and tkx for releasing my observations- which many others do not


          6. SPECIFICALLY?

            Should I remind you once more of the masked ball @ the Phantom of the opera?

            Masquerade? Paper faces on parade……..


  10. In each half of the old world, anti-Semitism was fueled by the dominant Abrahamic religion — Christianity in Europe, Islam in the Middle East.

    As Europe became more secular over the last few centuries, anti-Semitism (like other effects of religion) became weaker. The horrors of the Nazis made anti-Semitism profoundly un-respectable in European culture.

    In the Middle East, secularization and consequent weakening of anti-Semitism has lagged considerably behind Europe. Large-scale immigration from the Middle East to Europe meant importing large numbers of people from a culture which was still more strongly religious and anti-Semitic than what Europe had become. Thus the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe now is indeed largely being driven by Islam, though that effect too will presumably decrease in the future as descendants of Muslim immigrants assimilate and become more secular.

    It’s not really complicated.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. ”It’s not really complicated”

      Indeed it isn’t. However, if people such as Robertson and Colorstorm would at least acknowledge where it began perhaps its demise would be accelerated?

      Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m sure they are.
      All I am doing is pointing out that it was Christians who were the primary instigators and it would go a long way to accelerating its demise if people such as you acknowledged your religion is the primary culprit and spoke up.
      Maybe you could encourage David to do a post and explain your religion’s role of culpability?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Bear with me a minute Ark… 🙂


        I agree, however and unfortunately, simply stating “Christians” (and more so not designating a time-frame of “Christians) are the first instigators won’t really make any sense at all to present-day devout Christians. Aside from 95% of modern Christians not knowing anywhere NEAR enough of their own original soil, seeds, and roots 2,020 years ago in a culture they’re CLUELESS about… most of them can’t even tell you of WHICH variety of “Christian” they are or why!!! 😄 Hell, 99.5% of modern Christians NEVER read entirely their own Bibles, word for word, much less question/scrutinize what their church ministers and staff teach them! HAH! Too many Christians would rather just be non-thinking cattle, herded around and poked to echo various Scripture verses or perform antiquated (empty) rituals, e.g. Easter and Xmas. They gladly call that “Faith.” Doesn’t require any brainpower or energy! 😉

        So how can we expect them—and others like John Kilpatrick—“acknowledge and speak up” about it if they don’t even know themselves well enough, what to say/explain in any truthful manner, or much less their religion’s (faith’s) own contextual history!? Ain’t gonna happen I’m afraid. :/

        Liked by 1 person

        1. People like Kilpatrick and Robertson are well -versed enough in the history of Christianity to know at whose feet to lay the blame for the origins of antisemitism.
          Robertson is an historian – so he likes to remind readers (and listeners ) from time to time, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that JK is aware as well. Of course apologetics allows /teaches them to skirt the issue and thus the old saying:
          ”Ask no questions tell no lies” comes into play.

          If the Catholic Church can stand up and make pronouncements then you can bet your house that someone like Robertson (and others like him) could do the same if he was so inclined.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, agreed. That’s why I approximated “95%.” There are a few that go a bit further in validating impartially(?) their belief-system or world-view. But the vast majority don’t and honestly, secretly don’t care. 😉

            On your last paragraph, yes… agreed again. The question then becomes Can they do the general, humanitarian and equitable form of evaluations and pronouncements? I’d wager my bottle of blessed holy water and Jebus Christos’ foreskin that they cannot do it. 😉 😛


          2. Exactly. Because public image is much more important to maintain—i.e. Emerald City and the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain—than being truthful and bluntly human. Like you’ve pointed out: it isn’t rocket science.

            GEEEZZZZZZZ. Is there any way to just disband, shut down an entire Football Club? Can we just SHOOT the floundering fish out of water—that is Arsenal FC—PLEASE!? My Gunners are SO dysfunctional right now, from top to bottom, that I am astounded Arsenal fans are paying those ticket prices for the product they have on and off the field!!!! This is so sad. 😦


          3. Eh, Freddie Ljungberg as a player most definitely was instrumental in the 2001-2002 season victory against Liverpool, at Anfield no less, and his other fantastic goals against Liverpool later thru out that season. 😉 But as an interim Manager today he is a fish out of water (right now) in a messed up organization, unfortunately. Many problems. It is NEVER only/just the Manager. I would’ve never purchased Mesut Özil, gotten rid of Wojciech Szczęsny ASAP, and damn sure would’ve never brought on one of Brazil’s worst defenders of all-time, David Luiz. And there are a number of other decisions the staff/board have made since constructing that £390-million stadium.

            Grrrr, since Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira, and all of “The Invincibles” of that phenomenal season and 2006, then the purchase by Kroenke then Usmanov and Gazidis… the whole damn ship (club) has been slowly sinking… as was obvious today. The other problem is that there is just no mega-club, mega-experienced Klopps, Guardiolas, Klinsmanns, Simeones, Joachim Löws, etc, out there to go around every damn season when Mgrs get sacked after 2-4 seasons! The merry-go-round of footballing managers—who don’t produce big-time trophies in 2 freakin’ seasons!—is insane and hurts European, S. American, and N. American football in the long-run. Arsenal is the prime red-headed step-child of all this right now. 😦

            Liked by 1 person

        2. You might like this site, if for no other reason than they invite interaction from non believers – I shit you not – and it is not moderated!
          This is an article about the bible written by David Robertson, done in his usual warm, open & honest way that just makes you want to rush off to church and convert right away.


          and here’s one about prayer.


          It is run by Dave Robertson and a few of his xian mates and if you visit you don’t even have to type in Australian. What a bonus, right?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Hmmm, that is fantastic that the site is NOT moderated! Really? 🤔 Well, that would be a handy method of sharpening our debating skills, like going into enemy territory to engage and gather intel, huh? I’ll pop over there when I have some free time. Thank you Sir!

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Can’t do it, Ark,
        because it’s not true. You find antisemitism described in the Hebrew Bible — see for example, Esther — and that predates Christianity by a few hundred years.


        1. Of course it’s true.
          No other group in history ever accused Jews of murdering God.
          But Christians did, now didn’t they?


          Historians agree that the break between Judaism and Christianity followed the Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE and the subsequent exile of Jews. In the aftermath of this devastating defeat, which was interpreted by Jew and Christian alike as a sign of divine punishment, the Gospels diminished Roman responsibility and expressed Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus both explicitly (Matthew 27:25) and implicitly. Jews were depicted as killers of the Son of God.



          1. Not at all, Ark,
            the Bible is quite clear both about the complicity of all spheres of authority — including mob rule — in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; and that none of them knew what it was that they were doing. C.f. 1 Cor. 2:8 – ‘None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’


          2. In fact by you making this point you have further damned your religion and its adherents. because history quite clearly shows us that, your bible quote merely indicts those proponents even more, as people such as Chrysostom and Luther were aware of the text and yet they still condemned the Jews and thus perpetuated the accusation of ”Christ Killers”.


          3. There are reasons, Ark,
            why Christians take their lead from the Bible and why we fail when we don’t.


        2. Hi there.

          Okay, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the stuff in Esther happened. For people who don’t know the book, Haman (the antagonist) gets angry at one Jewish dude (named Mordecai) because he won’t kneel when Haman is around. In response, Haman orders violence against the entire Jewish population in the Persian Empire. Thus, violence against Jews isn’t because they’re Jewish; it’s because one guy wants a weirdly disproportionate revenge.

          In the OT, examples of Jewish persecution occur either as the result of some divine and cosmic punishment or, like with Haman, some sort of weird story contrivance. This is because the persecution and hatred of Jews in the OT is part of a theme. That theme is that the Jewish people suffer when they don’t remain faithful to Yahweh.

          I don’t think OT persecution is the same thing as modern antisemitism. Christianity carries with it a message that Jews were jerks to early Christians, and that they got in the way of the One True Faith. As a result, they become Haman to Christianity’s Mordecai. Of course this breeds resentment. It builds to the point that you can have pogroms in eastern Europe, Inquisitions in western Europe, and Holocausts in central Europe.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. ‘Weirdly disproportionate revenge’ seems to sum up antisemitism very nicely; so thank you for the expression. Putting your finger on resentment as a root cause is also perceptive but if we are going to be simplistic, the roots of bitterness are envy and greed so antisemitism rose to a fever pitch when the State of Israel was formed in 1948. The current problem that the British Labour Party is having with antisemitism relates directly to the groundswell of support for the current leader which has seen large numbers of new members join the party. Some of these new members bring with them resentments that find a focus in one particular aspect of Jeremy Corbyn’s long Parliamentary career as a troublesome backbencher. His provision of a platform at Westminster for Hamas and Hezbollah was thoroughly consistent with his involvement in the anti-apartheit protest movement but — as always seems to happen — a significant number of followers risk undermining his bid to rule by allowing their antisemitism to flourish.
            It would be naive to imagine that resentful young British Muslims would not take courage to focus their anger on the Jews but their bitterness has more to do with land than with religion.


          2. I’m singly impressed in the way you have managed to skirt the primary reason for antisemitism as we recognise it today and not even alluded to the likes of Luther or Chrysostom or what happened after the Romans adopted Christianity.
            Neither did you even offer a sniff of the term ”Christ Killers”.
            I would applaud your disengenuity John, but you are merely another glaring example of the hypocrisy your entire religion continually exudes.
            A classic Liar for Jesus.


          3. Are you suggesting that it was the formation of Israel that prompts all antisemitism in the UK? Or are you suggesting that UK antisemitism is only among British Muslims?

            Off the top of my head, David Irving seems to contradict either or both assertions, as it pleases you. He’s not Muslim. His early works appear influenced by outrage over the Dresden bombing rather than Israel. There’s no mention of him being part of any association with Corbyn. And that’s just one person off the top of my head. I’m sure others here might know more about British antisemitism than me.


          4. How have I ‘skirted’ the issue when I’m saying that your reasoning is nonsense, Ark?
            You must have missed what I said about Luther and Chrysostom. If they’d stuck to what the Bible says they would not have messed up on that point.


          5. Oh, sorry, I must have missed it. It is heartening in that case that you agree antisemitism as we understand it and as it has been practiced for the last 2 millennia is rooted in Christianity and it’s doctrine and especially the doctrine of ”Christ Killers.”
            If only all Christians were able to admit this as you have done.


          6. Priceless, Ark,
            you know that I’ve done nothing of the kind.
            Christianity: what the Bible teaches: Infallable.
            Luther: Christian (not Christianity per se): Liable to err and how!


          7. Infallible?
            The bible teaches slavery, so let’s try to keep it real, shall we?
            So you agree that the root cause of the antisemitism we understand in society can be traced back through Christian doctrine and its proponents – we can include the bible (gospel) if you like.
            Just to be perfectly clear -you are aware that referring to Jews (collective) by using the term ”Christ Killers” stems directly from a Christian background, yes?


          8. The root cause of antisemitism is sin, Ark,
            and as for keeping real: what is it about the Bible’s teaching on slavery that you expect me to find obnoxious? Since you think that there is a failure here — so obvious that you can invoke the single word, ‘Slavery’ and think you’ve destroyed the Infalability claim — give me one instance where the Bible’s teaching fails the slaves. Who knows, you might even come up with an instance where I can’t just say that that’s not what the Bible actually says.
            If you want evidence that the antisemitism row in Britain is serious then note that now the Conservatives are investigating three of their candidates for antisemitism; the general election is on Thursday. The history of weirdly disproportionate resentment against Jews goes back to the Exodus but to say that the present trouble in Hastings has its root in Amalekite resentment at the time of the desert crossing would be ridiculous. Trying to pin the blame on the early Christians is not helpful, not even to your own cause.


          9. The root cause of antisemitism is sin, Ark,

            Sin is a theological term considered to be a transgression against your god.

            Although … as you consider Yahweh/Jesus to be your god then Christians labeling Jews ”Christ Killers” has a note of bitter sweet irony, don’t you think?
            Anyway, irony notwithstanding, that you resort to using the excuse of ”sin” merely demonstrates how much of a disingenuous arse you truly are.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. This is interesting – yes, it’s Wiki, but again, it is referenced .

            Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:[2]

            Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in Ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature


            and to dispel any notion you are trying to slide in of the infallible bible there is this …..

            After Pilate washes his hands and declares himself innocent of Jesus’ blood, the Jewish crowd answers him, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25, RSV). In an essay regarding antisemitism, biblical scholar Amy-Jill Levine argues that this passage has caused more Jewish suffering throughout history than any other in the New Testament.[27]

            and let’s not forget this gem …


            Liked by 1 person

    2. Indeed, John. While I agree with them that Christianity bears some historic responsibility for anti-Semitism and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise, I also have extremely mixed feelings about what I am seeing in this thread.

      Many of the responses seem less interested in dealing with and reducing anti-Semitism as a bad action in its own right as they come off as trying to use anti-Semitism to attack Christianity. The focus seems to be: look how bad Christianity is and NOT look how bad anti-Semitism is.

      Anti-semitism is also a more complicated phenomenon than most of the responses are acknowledging. It has religious, economic, social, political, and racialized forms. Many of the stereotypes, prejudice, and hatred towards Jews stem from these other streams.


      1. No one is saying that at all, and if you are aware of the history then you would not make such a ridiculous assertion.
        Every reference work I have looked at highlights the Christian involvement at the root level and this is what this post is about – and how Christians such as Robertson and Kilpatrick refuse to acknowledge the culpability of their religion and some of its proponents.


        1. Ark,
          (this is about reference works and not antisemitism.) I have on my shelves a facsimile of a very rare 18th C book. I only bought it because it is advertised as having been written by the author I was studying and — like a significant number of other short items — it isn’t in The Complete Works. No wonder; because the title page lists a completely different author but — and here’s my point — I checked the Copac (now Library Hub) listings and they had all just copied the original mistake from where the mistake was made. Another example of the same sloppy practice occurs when the same press agency story is printed in every newspaper without anyone having bothered to fact-check.
          (Now, back to antisemitism.)
          I think when the same truism is found in ‘all the reference books’ there are grounds for wondering if all you have is one opinion repeated many times over rather than a range of studies converging on the same conclusion. I think I have good grounds for suspecting the former but in this case the truism needs to be challenged simply because it is being used as smokescreen by antisemites from both Left and Right. Read this from Howard Jacobson, who agrees with you and the reference books but is currently far more concerned about antisemitic fruit sustained by a decidedly non-Christian root: https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525 . Jews in England are worried and — in most cases — it isn’t because of the Christians.


          1. In every comment you have made and continue to make not once have you acknowledged the culpability of Christians and Christianity and how it became the single lasting major influence on antisemitism.
            It has been pointed out the historical animosity, even hatred that has been directed at the Jews, but nothing has come close to the lasting effects that are the result of the blame attached to them as a whole for the murder of the character, Jesus of Nazareth. And this is where the root cause of antisemitism as we know it today lies.
            Once more: the term ”Christ Killers” is not something one can merely shrug off, but like every controversial issue regarding your religion you hand wave away and insert something else to deflect and distract.

            Your behaviour is disgusting, but unfortunately, oh so typical.


          2. Ark,
            as I understand it, hand waving is a metaphor taken from the conjuror’s art of doing something with one hand to catch the eye while the other hand actually does the trick. When antisemitism has so come to the fore in the British election that the issue threatens to eclipse Brexit, there is every reason for Jews to be worried. Antisemitism is a clear and present danger to the Jewish community and Jews are, understandably on high alert: fear will be triggered in many, simply by overhearing the words ‘due’ and ‘choose’ in sentences that have nothing to do with them. They are triggered by quotations from the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures taken out of context; why should it be any different when Greek Scriptures are presented to them out of context?
            I confess that I have engaged in hand waving in conversations with Jews, not to disguise antisemitism but simply to allay fears that I harboured the Christ-killer virus. What I said was that I was a Scot, leaving them to remark that Scotland was the only country in Europe where there never was a pogrom. Simple as that; not open to the English; scarcely getting deep into the subject; but allowing conversation to take place.
            Two things: 1. Your charge that rather than drawing attention to what Jews know as a living reality, what David Robertson ought to have done is stir up ancient grudges and fears instead. Ark, that will not scratch where it iches. In South Africa it is common for burglar alarms to have ‘Armed response’ written on them; in Britain it is still a reassuring sight to see unarmed police patrols; but in North Finchley there was a constant presence of very visibly armed police outside one particular building — Balfour House — for over a decade. My neighbours knew that the bombing that led to the police presence was perpetrated not by those who would call Jews Christ killers but by those who believed — inasmuch as they had any faith at all — that Jesus did not die at all. I don’t think your attempt to get to the bottom of things would seem to be very relevent to North London Jewry just at this moment.
            2. My defense that Luther’s polemic against the Jews ought not to have been written and frankly wouldn’t have been if he had heeded the Biblical instruction to preach the whole counsel of God. We are at cross purposes, Ark, because you see the root of Luther’s antisemitism to be his Christianity and I see the root of his departure from the gospel at this point to be down to antisemitism. As I have done in the past I shall do some reading. My intention is to read Martin Goodan’s Rome and Jerusalem.



          3. David Robertson ought to have done is stir up ancient grudges and fears instead.

            Robertson expresses that he is astounded how ingrained antisemitism in Europe is.
            This is what I primarily took issue with, and not the political angle he was punting.
            The fact is, he is a preacher who represents the very religion that can be said to be, historically, the root cause of antisemitism as we know it today.
            Therefore, him being ”astounded” at this ingrained antisemitism is as lame an excuse as him saying he is ”astounded” ‘that people actually consider the tale of Noah to be nothing but myth.

            There is definite antisemitism within the very gospel(s) you claim Luther and his ilk departed from. And this is the view of a number of bible scholars I have read.

            Maybe you need to read them again without your rose-tinted, apologetic glasses?


          4. Long way to go, Ark,
            but so far it’s much easier to make the case that any antisemitism in Adversus Judaeos, etc. is there because the New Testament texts were ignored rather than adhered to. I’ve read as much of Goodman as I’ve been able to without actually having a copy of the book (arriving next week.) I don’t think he shares my putative ‘rose-tinted glasses.’


          5. Ark,
            here is a quote I stumbled across in the preface to an academic book published in the mid-Thirties. It is doubtful if the same detatched-from-current-realities atmosphere could have existed a decade later but anyway it demonstrates that in the Thirties, whether or not the church is to blame for the rise of antisemitism was a moot point, up for debate, academically.

            Since my manuscript was completed Dr James Parkes has published the first volume of his comprehensive survey of The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism (1934). At first I was afraid that he would have made my own work superfluous. But our aims are so different that this is not the case. He has attempted “to present all, not a selection, of the known facts of Jewish-Christian relations”, laying special stress on the legislation affecting the Jews in the first eight or nine centuries of our era. My study is very limited, and is concerned solely with the endeavours of certain Churchmen to win Jews to Christ by their writings, or, at least, to protect Christians against the arguments of their Jewish neighbours. The two books are complementary. Dr Parkes concludes that Anti-Semitism is almost entirely the fault of the Church. I am concerned to show that she did take an intellectual, and often a devout, interest in the spiritual welfare of the Jews around her.

            Adversus Judaeos by A. Lukyn Williams



          6. ”Dr Parkes concludes that Anti-Semitism is almost entirely the fault of the Church. ”

            Rather makes the point I have been stressing.
            ”Antisemitism as we generally understand it ….”

            A.Roy Ekhardt takes it further …

            The Christian contribution to the Holocaust ( Ha Shoah) is transparent if still (immorally )denied. The people whom the Nazis saw as the Evil in the world had long been since identified by the Church as the killers of God, the Devil’s special agents and the contemporary, continuing Nay-sayers to the Truth of Christ. Helmut Gollwitzer observes that the so-called absoluteness of Christianity was eventually to spell doom for the Jews of Europe.


      2. Thank you for the moderation of your contribution, Consoledreader,
        there is a real danger here in Liverpool at the minute that blatent antisemites think they can’t be accused of antisemitism scince they are not Christians; indeed, they might well think that their antisemitism isn’t antisemitism because it’s couched in antichristian terms.
        Luther is a prime example of a Christian vassilating in his attitude to the Jews; explainable though not excusable but making the point that antisemites have used the ‘Christ killer’ jibe whether or not they have any devotion to Christ will be dismissed as ‘handwaving’ on this forum.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. The focus on Christianity is because there are some people trying to pretend that antisemitism and Christianity have nothing or little to do with each other. Christianity is going to sound bad when people talk about its roots with antisemitism. It’s because how how bad antisemitism is.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Oh, and all the reasons for antisemitism? lump all the reasons together and It’s called ‘bigotry’. A root cause of thinking this way is by allowing one’s belief to arbitrate reality rather than allow reality to arbitrate beliefs. That’s religion in nutshell.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s