- This topic has 28 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
He explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for J’s death.
What does he know that previous Popes didnt, or why is he publicizing what previous Popes havent?
We do not need his exoneration.
We are not moichel them for killing so many of us mentally spiritually physically
To answer the question posed by the title of this topic: Better late than never. Perhaps this is another sign that Moshiach is near.
The first 2 comments, while basically true, demonstrate an unwillingness to accept the fact that sometimes gentiles try to comply with Hashem’s requirements, and we Jews should encourage the chesed in their gentile hearts and deeds.
Yay!!!
I feel so much better now that I’m not blamed!
Whew… that’s really a load off my shoulders, now i’ll be able to sleep at night!
But seriously folks…
The key term here is “the Jewish people as a whole“.
In other words, he’s saying Jews WERE to blame, BUT we won’t blame ALL Jews for ALL time.
Bottom line…
The catholic church still blames the Jews for killing ‘j’.
Oh well, I’ll still sleep well tonight.
Who cares what the Pope thinks and I for one don’t need his exoneration…
Didn’t Paul VI declare (as part of Vatican II back in the 1960s)that present-day Jews aren’t responsible for the death of Jesus? What’s different about this proclamation?
The Wolf
i saw something about that but didnt pay much attention
something about the first time being obscure and being read only by scholars
and this was a different type of proclamation, more widely available to the x=an public
something along those lines
“Rabbi David Rosen, head of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee and a leader of Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said the pope’s book may make a bigger, more lasting mark than Nostra Aetate because the faithful tend to read Scripture and commentary more than church documents, particularly old church documents.
“It may be an obvious thing for Jews to present texts with commentaries, but normally with church magisterium, they present a document,” he said. “This is a pedagogical tool that he’s providing, so people will be able to interpret the text in keeping with orthodox Vatican teaching.”
Foxman put it another way, saying the pontiff’s book translates Nostra Aetate “down to the pews.”
Fair enough. Thanks for the info, Mod-80.
The Wolf
The Wolf,
Didn’t Paul VI declare (as part of Vatican II back in the 1960s)that present-day Jews aren’t responsible for the death of Jesus? What’s different about this proclamation?
The previous pope made the public proclamation. This pope is trying to back it up with analysis. Obviously he is correct from a real-world standpoint, but I doubt the original authors of his texts would agree with him. They were, after all, conducting a huge smear campaign against the Jewish people as a whole.
Maybe the point is that he is telling HIS people not OUR people so THEY stop blaming us.
The bottom line is, that this proclamation by the pope wil make VERY little, if ANY difference in world wide anti-Semitism.
Why?
Many anti-Semites are not xtians (i.e. moslems)
Many xtians are not catholics (i.e. protestants)
Many catholics (just like r’l many Jews) are not religious AT ALL, – so, their anti-Semitism is something genetic by this point. It’s NOT based on catholic “frumkeit” or analysis of their “bible’, it’s just part of what they are, and no statement by a pope, whom they are not machshiv anyway, will make a difference in their attitudes about ANYTHING (e.g. about Jews, abortion, birth control, divorce, toayva’keit, etc.)
I was one accosted by an anti-Semitic chrishtian who made the claim I killed his god. My reply: “if I killed your god, you don’t want to know what I could do to you”.
“if I killed your god, you don’t want to know what I could do to you”.
better yet, becasue of that, you have a religion so thank me 🙂
If the pope wants this renewed declaration to have any teeth, he might want to start by deleting some of the more blatant anti Jewish sentiment expressed in his bible. For example….
The supposed self-condemnation where the Jews supposedly take on themselves and their offspring an eternal blame for the death of Jesus – found in the book of Matthew 27:25,
OR
Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 that Jews are “hostile to all men”.
OR
The statement in Revelation 2:9 and repeated in 3:9 that the Jews are a “synagogue of Satan”.
OR
Johns “complimentary” statement that declares that Jews are the “children of the devil” found in John 8:44.
Until then the chief galach of the “religion of peace” has a long way to go before convincing me that he and his co-religionists can tolerate Jews in this world.
mikehall12382…
Good point!
Read the book “The Passover Plot”.
It had the catholic church having a fit when it came out in the late ’60s. It’s a non-fiction book by a historian. His premise is that ‘j’ intended to fake his death and then “miraculously” rise from the dead. Unfortunately for him, a Roman soldier hastened his (normally slow death by crucifixion) death by sticking a spear in him. This put his co-conspiritors in tsuris, because now he REALLY was dead, and they thought their whole plan was kaput. They figured a way to fake his “resurrection”, enabling xtianity as we know it, to be born.
I don’t remember the author’s name but you can google the book name.
Forget the book Passover Plot. According to their warped interpretation of the 53rd Perek of Yeshaya (the ever “famous” Isiah 53) our killing him was a direct fulfillment of a prophecy. Without our killing him, they have no salvation and are damned for all eternity. They should be thrilled we killed him. However, they like to have it both ways. The salvation his death granted them as well as an eternal scapegoat for killing him. For 2000+ years, they have had their cake, and have been eating it too. The Jew has been their whipping boy for 2000 years and nothing the galach in rome says will change that mentality, the jews continued dismissal of all claims made by and about him is the eternal proof that he was not the jewish messiah and it bugs the heck out of them.
the head of the temayim in rome said that jews as a whole aren’t responsible , it was the action and fault of the cohanim.nu, so what difference does that make to anyone????
, if someone would say to me that i killed their god, i’d say ,”you picked the wrong god/ MY G-d is eternal, and indestructible and if you would listen to your own statement you would realize that a
True G-d can’t be killed.” but i wouldn’t really say that because you are not supposed to get into it with the goyim and i’m a little chicken anyway.
apushatayid…
Of course all you said is very true (although it’s still k’dai to read that very interesting book).
There are WAY TOO MANY stiras in their religion to cover here, but one thing I’ve always wondered about…
Aside from the fact that, of course, he was not the mashiach, how did it ever get into their heads that mashiach = G-d??? (or “son of G-d??)
Xtians equate the two, and we certainly do not.
That’s quite a leap to make, and it’s a fundamental principle of their belief.
Weird!
AinOhdMilvado – I’ll go one better. If he is the “son of G-d”, then how could he be descended from the House of David? Joseph was a descendent. But if he’s “G-d’s son”, then he’s not Joseph’s son. The Christians make a big deal about his lineage – “I will send you a saviour from the house of David”.
Aside from the fact that, of course, he was not the mashiach, how did it ever get into their heads that mashiach = G-d??? (or “son of G-d??)
Xtians equate the two, and we certainly do not.
That’s quite a leap to make, and it’s a fundamental principle of their belief.
It should be pointed out that not all Christians believe in the Trinity. Unitarians and J Witnesses, for example, believe in a conception of God that is similar to our own.
The Wolf
Joseph was playing these games even back then?
Aside from the fact that, of course, he was not the mashiach, how did it ever get into their heads that mashiach = G-d??? (or “son of G-d??)
I actually had this argument with someone on another (secular) message board once.
The crux of his argument (which may or may not be the normative thinking) was that God said He will send a messiah from the House of David and then decided to do one better and send Himself instead.
My counter-argument to that was that that would be fine if the speaker didn’t know the future.
For example, if my father sent me a letter saying “your brother’s coming and he’s going to do this for you…” and then he shows up himself, that’s fine — my father could change his mind. God, on the other hand, already knows whom He is going to send when He made the original proclamation, and He’s *not* going to change His mind. As a result, I argued, if HKBH Himself would show up one day and say “I’m Moshiach,” I would turn around and say “No, you’re not, because You didn’t say You were going to send Yourself. You said that You were going to send a descendant of Dovid.”
At that point, we had to simply agree to disagree. He could not accept that I would hold God to His word so literally. I could not accept that God would say one thing knowing He was going to do something else.
The Wolf
kgh5771…
Maybe Mary and Joseph were “conservative” Jews who believed in matrilineal yichus. (LOL)
Here’s something else to think about…
Xtians and the “new testament” always put down the Rabanim of that era and the “rabbinic”-following Jews, who were were the majority of the Jewish population, obviously because they did not accept ‘j’ as mashiach.
BUT – they have a big problem that I’ve never heard anyone discuss.
Xtians also supposedly believe in the “old” testament (i.e. our Tana”ch). The Torah teaches (and they would therefore also believe) that a Moavi can not convert to become a Jew. We know that David was the grandson of Rut HaMoavi’a. The only reason that was allowed, as I’m sure you all know, was because the rabbanim poskened that this only applied to MoavIM, and not to Moavi’OT. If not for that rabbinic p’sak, David, and his line, would have been pasul to be mashiach.
So… this leaves xtians on the horns of dilemma.
Either they (instead of hating the rabbanim) accept their p’sak which allowed Moavi’OT to convert, and thus allow the line of David to give birth (some day) to mashiach,
OR – admit that the Davidic line, which they claim ‘j’ came from, is not even a legitimate ‘stam’ Jewish line, much less a family fit to give birth to mashiach!
A lose-lose scenario if you are a xtian!!!
you’re
Yep, that should be “You’re” with a capital. My apologies.
The Wolf
AinOhd,
I think the Ramban discusses your point about if Moshiach is a person or a deity, in his debate.
oh – I thought you said POPA exonerates the Jews!!
some goy once accused me of killing his god…i said “the Jews didn’t…but given the chance we would have loved to” and we would have.
Itche – PLEASE watch your language! Even in texting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.