| |
|
I appreciate and respect your take on this, resistable, but see my comments on describing why I don't think the Gospel of John's mention of "the Jews" as being ticked off with Jesus is anti-Semetic. Ditto "the priests, chief scribes and elders". Yes, the Jews crucified Jesus. That statement is not anti-Semetic. Why? Because 85% of the population was Jewish at that time, in that area!!! And I reiterate again that the Gospels are more about the SOCIETY (yes, and most of that society were Jews), the Gov't, the Man, wanting Jesus out of the picture than anything else.
Where in the Gospels of John does it say anything negative about the Jews other than the fact that they were threatened, scared and infuriated by Jesus and wanted him gone? Where does it say the Jews are vile and evil and smelly and we should get rid of them? If I write a story where I have a bunch of white people kill a white savior figure where the town is 95% white and the story says "all these white people killed the white savior figure", is the story anti-white??? Or just telling a story of how the establishment did away with the savior figure? Remember, Jesus was Jewish too.
I think I've made myself pretty clear on this, no matter how much you attempt to make me seem very closed-minded (and obviously wrong, in your way of thinking) about it. The Catholic's church's reprehensible anti-Semetic behavior based on their lousy-ass and wrong reading of the Gospels (using my analogy earlier, we should kill the white people who killed the white savior now that the white savior inspired non-whites to follow him!) ain't the fault of the Gospels, it's the fault of ignorance and prejudice and hatred of the Other. |
|
|
