Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews?

[French Patriot]

Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews?

 

The racism that many show against Jews, must by definition include Jesus, as he only taught Jewish traditions along with his criticisms of it. This included the Jewish esoteric and mystical teachings similar to Gnostic Christian thinking. Jesus’ forte.

 

Yahweh chose to have the Jews and Romans sacrifice Jesus and thus the Jews hold no blame.

 

Yahweh loved the Jews and it seems counter intuitive to have religions like Christianity and Islam, who have usurped the Jewish Yahweh and Jesus from the Jews, to try to take the Jew out of Jesus and hating that Jewishness.

 

Jewry is the root and patriarch of Christianity and Islam, yet those religions do not seem to respect their own Jewish roots.

Roots should be revered. Christians and Muslims do not love or respect their religious fathers and mothers; so to speak.

 

Jesus was a Jew.

 

Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews?

 

Regards

DL

[Rue]

I would say start with Pauline Christianity for the original roots of Christian Jewish hatred. You know original Ebionites, Pharisees, Gnostics, the original Christian's were not the source.  Then go to Augustus, St. Jerome, Martin Luther.

In Islam there are numerous derogatory references as to Jews.

Bottom line is all of us can use any religion to justify hating others. The very same words can be used to heal or injure.

Jesus had many words attributed to him after his death by ghost writers following an agenda to censor  and downplay James.

Your Christian values taught you to love not hate. That is all that matters to me. I am like most modern Jews. I see the messiah as the potential in all of us to heal the world. I do not see it in one figure.

I see the gospels as parables or examples of humility ..a quality we could all do well to try manifest and develop.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Rue

[French Patriot]

An educated reply. Nice.

You confused me a bit though by including Gnostics and Pharisees. 

The latter were Jews and the Gnostic of that day and area were made up mostly of Jews and Chrestians.

Your last is pure Gnostic Christian thinking.

Not surprising given that Jews are hated for their intelligence and banking.

Regards

DL

[Rue]

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 8:33 PM, French Patriot said:

An educated reply. Nice.

You confused me a bit though by including Gnostics and Pharisees. 

The latter were Jews and the Gnostic of that day and area were made up mostly of Jews and Chrestians.

Your last is pure Gnostic Christian thinking.

Not surprising given that Jews are hated for their intelligence and banking.

Regards

DL

Lol I know nothing about banking. Now stand up comedy I know.

 

[French Patriot]

On 1/9/2020 at 12:37 PM, Rue said:

Lol I know nothing about banking. Now stand up comedy I know.

 

Know that back then, Christians thought lending was usury and had to borrow from the Jews as they could not borrow from Christians.

Regards

DL

[Rue]

Interestingly usury and charging interest two noteable things Jesus is said to have questioned would make perfect sense. It had nothing to do with Judaism. In fact if you follow Judaism as originally intended you share what you do not need without placing conditions on the sharing. The person you share with would do the same thing causing a society of constant sharing not accumulation. That concept of course today would prevent the very basis of our materialist free enterprise system and would probably be called collectivism or socialism by many.

Animistic peoples such as the aboriginals in North America and aboriginals of Australia and numerous peoples in Africa practiced it. Materialism and free enterprise are thought to be as ancient as humankind. Some anthropologists would disagree saying free enterprise occurred when alpha males lost control of their packs and dominated the method of how goods were distributed among a pack. An Alpha male would eat first, then his mates and their offspring, then everyone else in a pecking order but in that primitive set up survival of the fittest was assured with limited resources. That system was not free enterprise. Free enterprise only occurred once there were enough resources to accumulate unevenly. In societies with extreme shortages of resources free enterprise becomes impossible because no one can afford the few resources there are

Its interesting because Jesus if he did indeed challenge the money lenders was defending basic precepts in the Talmud as to how to interpret charity and benevolence. At the pith and  substance of his fights or disagreements was someone trying to defend the religion from going astray to the changes being implemented by Priests.

The thing is in Judaism there is no one approach that is supposed to prevail. We are supposed to constantly debate and come up with new interpretations and each and every word of the Torah, Talmud, Old Testament. There was no intent to come up with a one size fits all interpretation as do many Evangelical or Orthodox Christians.

I think the Bible's New Testament diverged from its actual teachings to an edited version that makes it seem Jesus was a totalitarian demanding no one question him. I think in the original context if there was a Jesus (as opposed to maybe more than one rebel Rabbiah placed in a collective metaphor called Jesus) it is most likely he would have expected debate and constant challenges to his concepts and would have welcomed them.

I of course lean towards words and concepts of James and others I would argue were deleted because they did not lend themselves to one central organ demanding people obey blindly but taught of being religious or spiritual on an  individual level and through individual actions to help others as creating those concepts, not just words.

I don't think a lot of people would very much appreciate the implications let alone having to practice the actual beliefs of Jesus. I think they would find it in today's society unrealistic.

The very notion of helping people is confusing in today's society as well because many people demanding help won't help themselves or others and a key to the concept is those of us needing help should still help ourselves first and continue to help others and not believe since we need help, we suspend the rest and simply demand help.

Its why for me when I see one of the few remaining charities I think is teaching a practical application of Christianity, the Salvation Army, I note they do not require a person in need to be a Christian to be helped by them, they do not place preconditions on the person but they also expect that person to make some effort to  help themselves and others if they want help and in so doing they do not rob them of their souls. If you give to someone and in so doing teach them however unintentionally they do not have to be responsible for helping themselves or others, you molest or injure or even destroy their soul. 

I believe Jesus taught as did so many others that even the most in need humans  want to have a purpose in life (dignity, self-esteem( and our purpose in life is to create meaning from chaos and struggle of the evil and good within us to create something positive for other life forms. If by helping others we rob them of that, we molest them not help them. Giving must be done with no method that prevents the person we help from helping themselves. That is a huge lesson many do not follow who claim to be charitable.

Another example of a charity who follow what I say are the Unitarian Service Committee. I could name many Jewish charities and Christian charities that do the same but space does not allow but the point is they do not require you to be Christian, or anything else, they simply help you in a way expecting nothing in return but in a way that assists, nurtures or helps the person in need help themselves NOT simply be a dependent victim.

I think usury and lending money came about because of an unequal distribution of resources and was a socio-economic caused deviation away from the religion.

I just can not see true Christianity approving of the wealthy large organizations that now claim to speak the name of Christ. I believe the religion was supposed to be like the Bhuddist or Daoist approach, a disciplined method of thinking and valuing that occurred through meditation not going into a large building designed to make people fear and feel small in the face of a God that is portrayed as demanding things through the Jesus liaison turning Jesus into a person who demands on behalf of this God.

I am aware of the reference to what Christians call Satan in the Old Testament, but in the Old Testament that angel was placed in the role of a tester of faith on behalf of God.

The idea of disobeying God still would occur ultimately in the Old Testament with each individual in the story not just the tribe they may have led.

I think the personification of evil and good in human nature in Jesus and Satan as two human figures representing it assist making an abstract concept easier but I myself do not see the evil and good in any human dictated by or controlled  by anyone but us ultimately and inevitably on an individual level when we make our choices.

Some people believe we have no free choice and are trapped in a hell dictating our choices and we live therefore in an illusion, a trap created by Satan, and to get out, we must turn to ourselves and realize everything is a lie and so it doesn't matter what we do, we need to protect ourselves. Thus we have all these cult following twits in Hollywood celebrating what they think is an Illuminated savior, the true Jesus not the one they were told who they believe is Satan. They believe their illuminated savior is the real Jesus or symbol to get out of hell and they are in the know and smarter than we idiots. Then again some believe shapeshifting lizards control us all.

Me I take one thought at a time. I watch the simplicity of free thought take shape in the here and now and watch the past, present and future, cease to have meaning. As one gets older that happens. They realize the current moment is the all or nothing of the essence of life a movement and transfer of energy constantly changing shape and dimension with each new application or synthesis of conclusion that comes from thesis and anti-thesis contradicting one another.

To live is simply to share positive energy, to spread hope even if it seems hopeless-again the message of Jesus and many others and one of my favourites Anne Frank.

 

 

 

 

[French Patriot]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Jesus if he did indeed challenge the money lenders

First. Thanks for an interesting read. 

I did not read where he challenged the money lenders so much as the money changers.

Jews had to pay tribute to the temple with Roman coins and I think that that is why the scribes put Jesus' fit into the bible.

I think the bible does use the term money lenders but that might have been Christians trying to discredit Jews. The hate started early in Christianity.

4 hours ago, Rue said:

it is most likely he would have expected debate and constant challenges to his concepts and would have welcomed them.

I agree wholeheartedly. Jesus was a perpetual seeker and asked us to be the same. 

Gnostic Christians take that to heart but it is discarded by Christians who are idol worshipers of a genocidal and infanticidal god that they can somehow see as goods.

 

5 hours ago, Rue said:

To live is simply to share positive energy,

Here we disagree depending perhaps on your definition.

I live by the adage that, --- for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing. In this case, only share positive energy.

I see hate being born of love. When we decide to have a love bias to something or someone, we automatically create a hate bias against anything that might jeopardize that which is loved.

In light of that, I see much in religion that jeopardizes that which I love and I spend most of my time fighting those evils.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Regards

DL

 

[Rue]

17 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

First. Thanks for an interesting read. 

I did not read where he challenged the money lenders so much as the money changers.

Jews had to pay tribute to the temple with Roman coins and I think that that is why the scribes put Jesus' fit into the bible.

I think the bible does use the term money lenders but that might have been Christians trying to discredit Jews. The hate started early in Christianity.

I agree wholeheartedly. Jesus was a perpetual seeker and asked us to be the same. 

Gnostic Christians take that to heart but it is discarded by Christians who are idol worshipers of a genocidal and infanticidal god that they can somehow see as goods.

 

Here we disagree depending perhaps on your definition.

I live by the adage that, --- for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing. In this case, only share positive energy.

I see hate being born of love. When we decide to have a love bias to something or someone, we automatically create a hate bias against anything that might jeopardize that which is loved.

In light of that, I see much in religion that jeopardizes that which I love and I spend most of my time fighting those evils.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Regards

DL

 

Actually I agree with it.  I should have been clearer. You need to struggle to provide it. It can't just come without effort and overcoming evil or some other challenge. That struggle is what teaches its meaning and makes it positive.

Hey about that other issue. Money changer, money lender. Interesting the difference in words. I know the Bible says changer but as you know the changers  lent money and charged interest  when they changed it. To me if you follow the gospels about that which I can see happening given he appears to have defended the Talmud consistently especially the concept of Teekam Olem (healing the world through positive deeds) he was challenging the concept of wealth itself and what makes one wealthy-the amount of money they accumulate or have or the good they can do for others and the world in general. That is the point. Wealth we as know it you and I is measured in how much good we do not how much money we earn.

Has anything good come from charging interest and changing or lending money? We haven't used it as an exercise to share but to hoard and accumulate and charge others for what we accumulate and they need. His teachings talked of mutual exchanges not supply and demand allowing one side to dictate the terms  of exchange.

It gets down to this I think-is Christianity or for that matter Judaism compatible with supply and demand exchanges and market places?

Another thing. I do understand that in Europe because Jews could not own land or engage in certain professions they were forced to become money lenders out of necessity but it was soul rotting. To have to do that for a living ate up the Jewish soul. It is why perhaps when we  Jews did get the opportunity to do other things- we may have excelled because we know  how horrible it is to have to do  other things out of necessity to survive in the immediate tense and not be able  pursue the meaning of life on a higher level of sharing.

 

 

 

 

[French Patriot]

28 minutes ago, Rue said:

they were forced to become money lenders out of necessity but it was soul rotting.

I do not see why you would say that.

I see nothing wrong with banks and or lending money as long as it does not cross the usury line.

I can understand why people turned on the Jews to some extent. I think it is almost instinctual to hate, to some degree, that which is fitter than we are and Jews, as bankers, would have been naturally hated, unfortunately.

The drug trade calls it turning on the pusher.

I think that the Jews were smart enough to know this, but the benefits must have outweighed the down side. 

In modern times, hopefully the general population will catch up to intelligent thinking and racism will reduce as the worlds colors meld.

Many Canadians, although still racist, are likely to reduce in this discrimination faster than most.

This white guy has already become a minority in my area and I am sure glad that I have never been racist. 

Regards

DL

[Rue]

It was soul rotting because it had to make profit. Profit is not a concept of spirituality. It is a concept of man made practical necessity to survive because we could not treat each other as equals and share fairly.

But hey I get why evangelists like profit and turn their religion into a scam to make money. Business is business.

I also think we are all born bigoted and remain so our entire lives. Whether we learn to understand how this distorts our perceptions and decipher the distortions remains with the individual. Some have no idea of the distorytons existing, some do and so try their best to decipher them but in the end all of us see what we decide to see and whether that is actually what we see remains to be seen.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Rue