An honest reason behind Christian's sympathy towards Jews

[Roman57]

Most Christians would say that Bible condemns antisemitism. Yet, starting from second century all the way throughout middle ages all the way till 19-th century and even beginning of 20-th century antisemitism was a mainstream belief among Christians. So the question is why did things change? Yes, we have antisemites now, but nowdays they are a minority, while in the past they were vast majority. The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians, when Bible prophesizes the opposite, that there would be falling away of the church at the end times.

I think the real honest reason why Christians have sympathy towards Jews is simply because they feel bad for the Jews after the holocaust. As much as Christians will deny it, this is something that objective look at the timeline, and objective use of secular psychology would tell us. And whether the Bible supports antisemitism or not is a separate question. I am not discussing whether Bible supports antisemitism -- I am only discussing the psychology of people that cause them to choose one interpretation of the Bible over the other. Right or wrong, it was traditional to choose antisemitic interpretations of the Bible. But then the holocaust made them feel bad for the Jews, so they decided to rethink their interpretation of the Bible and choose less antisemitic ones.

This being said, lets ask ourselves a different question. On the one hand, Christians can't bear the idea that 6 million holocaust victims deserved it. Yet, on the other hand, Christians are okay with an idea that people that are in hell deserve it. But you see, the 6 million Jews only suffered for limitted period of time, while hell suffering is eternal (the reason I say they suffered for limitted period of time is because Christians are not comfortable in saying Anne Frank or any other holocaust victim is in hell, even though they don't believe in Jesus; or even if we do say they are in hell, they would have been in hell with or without Hitler; the amount of suffering Hitler ADDED to it is finite). So why is it finite suffering of 6 million Jews is harder to bear than infinite suffering of a lot more people in hell? I think its because Christians haven't actually seen hell, yet they seen the suffering of 6 million Jews. Yes, they say they believe in hell. But its one thing to simply believe, and its another thing altogether to actually see it.

In fact lets ask ourselves a famous question as to how Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus right before his death and how Anne Frank could go to hell for not believing in Jesus. But, instead of trying to answer this question, lets ask ourselves a different question. Regardless if its true or not, why would it be more appealing to our sensitivities to see Anne Frank in heaven and Hitler in hell? In other words, we are not asking who is actually in heaven or in hell, we are only asking the question about ourselves: namely our own sensitivities. And it is a valid question. Because you see, if Anne Frank were to go to heaven and Hitler were to go to hell, then Hitler would suffer in hell a lot more and a lot longer than Anne Frank suffered in the real life. So, since the honest reason for sympathy towards Anne Frank is that she suffered more (see above), then this reason is no longer true, since now Hitler suffered more. Yet, I still claim that the reason that Anne Frank suffered more is real honest reason. Because, again, people haven't seen hell. So even though they conceptually know that Hitlers suffering in hell are a lot more severe and a lot longer, still deep down on a more intuitive level they feel that Anne Frank's suffering are worse, because its here in the tangible, while hell isn't.

A counter-argument to this is a statement "yes Hitler suffered more but he deserved it while Anne Frank didn't". I don't buy this either. Because one can claim that Jews deserved it too, since they killed Jesus. If you say "Romans killed Jesus", again, let me ask you to be honest with yourself and others. What would have happened if for the past 2 millenia people were to persecute Italians instead of Jews beause Romans killed Jesus, and then Hitler were to kill 6 millions Italians instead of 6 millions Jews for that same reason. Then everyone would feel bad for Italians and would say "Jews killed Jesus" not because they hate Jews but simply because they want to redeem Italians who were victims of all that persecution. But since in actuality it were the Jews that were persecutted and not the Italians, thats why nowdays so many people want to say that Romans killed Jesus out of sympathy towards Jews. But if we were to be more honest then yes Bible teaches Jews killed Jesus or at least strongly suggests it.

Then the other argument is that its unfair to nowdays Jews to be punished for what their ancestors did 2 millenia ago. Well, by the same token, it is also unfair to punish humankind as a whole for what Adam and Eve did in even more distant past. Yet, most Christians feel like punishing Jews for their ancestors is objectionable while the belief in original sin isn't. Again, I think it is because they wittnessed the holocaust so they feel a lot of sympathy towards the Jews. But wait a second: wouldn't the majority of mankind suffer for original sin a lot more severely and a lot longer than Jews suffered for the holocaust? Again: the holocaust happened in the tangible while the future hell for original sin isn't.

And also, as far as the idea that "unlike Anne Frank, it was Hitler's own choice", if you look at it from Calvinist perspective, Hitler was predestined to make the choices he did. I am not saying I am a Calvinist. But I can still ask a question: why is it, the people that are Calvinist, still act as if Hitler is responsible for what he did, yet Jews aren't responsible for how they were born, if neither of them had a choice (from Calvinist perspective)? Again, the answer lies in their sympathies towards Jews after the holocaust. And again I can ask why don't they have even more sympathies towards Hitler, given that he had no choice either (from their perspective), and he would suffer eternally? Again, the answer lies in the fact that they see Jewish suffering in the tangible while the suffering in hell is not tangible.

Now, if you look at all the bolded parts, you will see that the jist of why people changed their theology out of sympathy towards the holocaust victims yet they are okay in believing in hell and so forth, is really because, whether they admit it or not, they treat hell as less real than this tangible world. So the holocaust was really just a small glimpse of hell here in the tangible. And the glimpse of hell in the tagible is something they can't stand to the point of having to change their theology, while the full blown hell in the intangible is something they are willing to believe in, because even though they say they believe in it, deep down they treat it as intangible.

A lot of other social issues point to the same thing too. How come people are more mad at David Duke than they are at John Macarthur? David Duke never said Jews or blacks go to hell, he simply wants to change some policies here on earth, while John Macarthur says vast majority of people were predestined to hell from birth (even though this predestination is not related to skin color, how is it any better than if it was? whether its skin color or not, the bottom line is that they had no control over it). The reason David Duke is more offensive than John MacArthur is, again, because David Duke deals with the tangible while John Macarthur deals with intangible. People claim they treat hell as tangible, since they want to say they are Chrsitian. But the fact is they don't, as the above contrast illustrates.

By the way, I am a Christian. If you ask me what I believe Bible wants us to believe about those issues, I would be a lot more honest than most and say I don't know: Bible has many interpretations. But the above secular analysis should be considered, if you want to be honest with yourself.

 

[Joseph G]

I dunno, Roman, all I can offer to you is that not all Christians believe as you presume. For myself, I find it absolutely intolerable that I could enjoy Heaven for one day being aware that anybody is simultaneously suffering torment in hell. How do I deal with it? By acknowledging that God is waaay more Holy than me and can handle the knowledge. Maybe we just won't be aware, I dunno.

The 2nd thing I would address is any notion of sitting in His judgement seat deciding that this person deserves hell more than the other. All I know is that *I* deserve to be there, and by His astounding grace alone do I have the assurance that He will never say to me, "depart from Me, I never knew you." I've walked with Him long enough to be convinced that He indeed knows me very well, to my innermost being. And yet He desires to fellowship with ME, of all people!

I do my level best to pass that grace along to anyone I regard - serial killer, child molester, adulterer, whatEVER. Who am I to say that I'm more righteous than anybody else?

Yes, it is distressing to think that Anne Frank or 6 million Jews, or anyone else is in hell when such-and-such is not - but its not our job to judge God for what we perceive or contemplate according to our very limited understanding. He has given us enough - the life of His Son Jesus - to be convicted that He IS good, and He IS love - isn't that enough to trust His sovereignty in judging the lost?

He addresses the source of our judgement of His precepts pretty clearly:

Job 40:7-8 NIV

"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"

As for supporting Jews and Israel, I personally don't support them for any virtue they uniquely carry (let's face it, they are still in open rebellion against the true Messiah), but quite frankly because I am eager to see each and every Biblical prophecy fullfilled.

God bless!

 

[jacks]

For me it has nothing to do with the holocaust. Basically any automatic hatred against a whole group of people is categorically wrong. It really doesn't take a lot of analysis.

 

[Roman57]

For me it has nothing to do with the holocaust. Basically any automatic hatred against a whole group of people is categorically wrong. It really doesn't take a lot of analysis.

As obvious as it might seem to you, fact remains: it wasn't so obvious for Christians in 2-nd through 19-th centuries, as the vast majority of them hated Jews, to the point of seeing nothing wrong with Jews being isolated from the rest of society all those centuries. And then, right after the holocaust, this is no longer the case. Which makes it apparent, based off of the timeline, that holocaust was the reason for that change.

Now, I realize why you, as an individual, might not be aware that holocaust plays a role in your views. Because, unless you are very old, most likely you were born after the holocaust. So you can not say "hey, before the holocaust I used to hate Jews, but then after the holocaust I realized the error of my ways", since before the holocaust you simply weren't around. So, most likely, what happened is that your great-grandparents changed their views due to the holocaust, then they taught your grandparents their updated views (without necesserely telling them why they changed their views) then your grandparents taught your parents and your parents taught you. So, by the time you were born, you are no longer aware that the reason its considered wrong to hate the whole group of people is the holocaust. By the time you are born, you were simply taught that its wrong, without the reasons why. Yet, historically, the way this idea came about that its wrong is the holocaust.

I mean, ask yourself the following question. Why is that it is wrong to hate the whole group of people, yet its not wrong to believe in Calvinism? In both cases, people are punished due to how they were born. The only difference is that Calvinists don't claim that predestination is based on race. But what difference does it make whether predestination is based off of race or not? In both cases the person is being punished for something they had no control over. And in fact Calvinism is worse because in case of Calvinism you are talking about eternal punishment, while in case of most forms of racism you are only talking about the punishment here on earth.

So the real honest reason why you hate racists more than Calvinists is because you were raised that way. And the reason you are raised that way is because of the history of slavery and holocaust. You just don't realize it, but that is what historically led to you being raised having the values that you do.

 

[Godcrazy]

Most Christians would say that Bible condemns antisemitism. Yet, starting from second century all the way throughout middle ages all the way till 19-th century and even beginning of 20-th century antisemitism was a mainstream belief among Christians. So the question is why did things change? Yes, we have antisemites now, but nowdays they are a minority, while in the past they were vast majority. The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians, when Bible prophesizes the opposite, that there would be falling away of the church at the end times.

I think the real honest reason why Christians have sympathy towards Jews is simply because they feel bad for the Jews after the holocaust. As much as Christians will deny it, this is something that objective look at the timeline, and objective use of secular psychology would tell us. And whether the Bible supports antisemitism or not is a separate question. I am not discussing whether Bible supports antisemitism -- I am only discussing the psychology of people that cause them to choose one interpretation of the Bible over the other. Right or wrong, it was traditional to choose antisemitic interpretations of the Bible. But then the holocaust made them feel bad for the Jews, so they decided to rethink their interpretation of the Bible and choose less antisemitic ones.

This being said, lets ask ourselves a different question. On the one hand, Christians can't bear the idea that 6 million holocaust victims deserved it. Yet, on the other hand, Christians are okay with an idea that people that are in hell deserve it. But you see, the 6 million Jews only suffered for limitted period of time, while hell suffering is eternal (the reason I say they suffered for limitted period of time is because Christians are not comfortable in saying Anne Frank or any other holocaust victim is in hell, even though they don't believe in Jesus; or even if we do say they are in hell, they would have been in hell with or without Hitler; the amount of suffering Hitler ADDED to it is finite). So why is it finite suffering of 6 million Jews is harder to bear than infinite suffering of a lot more people in hell? I think its because Christians haven't actually seen hell, yet they seen the suffering of 6 million Jews. Yes, they say they believe in hell. But its one thing to simply believe, and its another thing altogether to actually see it.

In fact lets ask ourselves a famous question as to how Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus right before his death and how Anne Frank could go to hell for not believing in Jesus. But, instead of trying to answer this question, lets ask ourselves a different question. Regardless if its true or not, why would it be more appealing to our sensitivities to see Anne Frank in heaven and Hitler in hell? In other words, we are not asking who is actually in heaven or in hell, we are only asking the question about ourselves: namely our own sensitivities. And it is a valid question. Because you see, if Anne Frank were to go to heaven and Hitler were to go to hell, then Hitler would suffer in hell a lot more and a lot longer than Anne Frank suffered in the real life. So, since the honest reason for sympathy towards Anne Frank is that she suffered more (see above), then this reason is no longer true, since now Hitler suffered more. Yet, I still claim that the reason that Anne Frank suffered more is real honest reason. Because, again, people haven't seen hell. So even though they conceptually know that Hitlers suffering in hell are a lot more severe and a lot longer, still deep down on a more intuitive level they feel that Anne Frank's suffering are worse, because its here in the tangible, while hell isn't.

A counter-argument to this is a statement "yes Hitler suffered more but he deserved it while Anne Frank didn't". I don't buy this either. Because one can claim that Jews deserved it too, since they killed Jesus. If you say "Romans killed Jesus", again, let me ask you to be honest with yourself and others. What would have happened if for the past 2 millenia people were to persecute Italians instead of Jews beause Romans killed Jesus, and then Hitler were to kill 6 millions Italians instead of 6 millions Jews for that same reason. Then everyone would feel bad for Italians and would say "Jews killed Jesus" not because they hate Jews but simply because they want to redeem Italians who were victims of all that persecution. But since in actuality it were the Jews that were persecutted and not the Italians, thats why nowdays so many people want to say that Romans killed Jesus out of sympathy towards Jews. But if we were to be more honest then yes Bible teaches Jews killed Jesus or at least strongly suggests it.

Then the other argument is that its unfair to nowdays Jews to be punished for what their ancestors did 2 millenia ago. Well, by the same token, it is also unfair to punish humankind as a whole for what Adam and Eve did in even more distant past. Yet, most Christians feel like punishing Jews for their ancestors is objectionable while the belief in original sin isn't. Again, I think it is because they wittnessed the holocaust so they feel a lot of sympathy towards the Jews. But wait a second: wouldn't the majority of mankind suffer for original sin a lot more severely and a lot longer than Jews suffered for the holocaust? Again: the holocaust happened in the tangible while the future hell for original sin isn't.

And also, as far as the idea that "unlike Anne Frank, it was Hitler's own choice", if you look at it from Calvinist perspective, Hitler was predestined to make the choices he did. I am not saying I am a Calvinist. But I can still ask a question: why is it, the people that are Calvinist, still act as if Hitler is responsible for what he did, yet Jews aren't responsible for how they were born, if neither of them had a choice (from Calvinist perspective)? Again, the answer lies in their sympathies towards Jews after the holocaust. And again I can ask why don't they have even more sympathies towards Hitler, given that he had no choice either (from their perspective), and he would suffer eternally? Again, the answer lies in the fact that they see Jewish suffering in the tangible while the suffering in hell is not tangible.

Now, if you look at all the bolded parts, you will see that the jist of why people changed their theology out of sympathy towards the holocaust victims yet they are okay in believing in hell and so forth, is really because, whether they admit it or not, they treat hell as less real than this tangible world. So the holocaust was really just a small glimpse of hell here in the tangible. And the glimpse of hell in the tagible is something they can't stand to the point of having to change their theology, while the full blown hell in the intangible is something they are willing to believe in, because even though they say they believe in it, deep down they treat it as intangible.

A lot of other social issues point to the same thing too. How come people are more mad at David Duke than they are at John Macarthur? David Duke never said Jews or blacks go to hell, he simply wants to change some policies here on earth, while John Macarthur says vast majority of people were predestined to hell from birth (even though this predestination is not related to skin color, how is it any better than if it was? whether its skin color or not, the bottom line is that they had no control over it). The reason David Duke is more offensive than John MacArthur is, again, because David Duke deals with the tangible while John Macarthur deals with intangible. People claim they treat hell as tangible, since they want to say they are Chrsitian. But the fact is they don't, as the above contrast illustrates.

By the way, I am a Christian. If you ask me what I believe Bible wants us to believe about those issues, I would be a lot more honest than most and say I don't know: Bible has many interpretations. But the above secular analysis should be considered, if you want to be honest with yourself.

God reminds me of if the Jewish people hadn't persevering and been faithful and all, how would the Messiah been born. And all the examples of faith and teachings. OT builds on NT. It comes from inside, a special love for them. I know it's God. If it wasn't for all that...

 

[Roman57]

God reminds me of if the Jewish people hadn't persevering and been faithful and all, how would the Messiah been born. And all the examples of faith and teachings. OT builds on NT. It comes from inside, a special love for them. I know it's God. If it wasn't for all that...

Again, this argument could logically have been made in middle ages too, yet people weren't seeing it this way. People only started making this argument after the holocaust. Which shows that their true motive is the sympathy towards the holocaust victims. And, out of that sympathy, they ended up focusing on Jesus being a Jew instead of focusing on Jews being Christ killers like they used to in the middle ages.

 

[Godcrazy]

Again, this argument could logically have been made in middle ages too, yet people weren't seeing it this way. People only started making this argument after the holocaust. Which shows that their true motive is the sympathy towards the holocaust victims. And, out of that sympathy, they ended up focusing on Jesus being a Jew instead of focusing on Jews being Christ killers like they used to in the middle ages.

That's not how I thought. When I was saying it I wasn't even thinking of a holocaust

 

[Roman57]

That's not how I thought. When I was saying it I wasn't even thinking of a holocaust

Maybe your great grandparents thought of the holocaust when they realized what you just said -- and then as they taught your grandparents and your grandparents taught your parents and your parents taught you, you were simply raised believing it. And you don't realize that historically the reason you were raised this way goes back to the holocaust.

 

[Godcrazy]

Maybe your great grandparents thought of the holocaust when they realized what you just said -- and then as they taught your grandparents and your grandparents taught your parents and your parents taught you, you were simply raised believing it. And you don't realize that historically the reason you were raised this way goes back to the holocaust.

Actually no my parents are atheist. This was never ever talked about. Fact is what they endured through thousands of years. All the ptophets. All the faithful. All the examples. Goes way beyond a Holocaust

 

[Roman57]

Actually no my parents are atheist. This was never ever talked about. Fact is what they endured through thousands of years. All the ptophets. All the faithful. All the examples. Goes way beyond a Holocaust

Then maybe its the other way. Before the holocaust, parents used to teach children to hate Jews so it passed from generation to generation. Then, after the holocaust, that particular generation felt sorry for the Jews so they didn't teach their children to hate Jews. But their children didn't realize that the only reason their parents didn't teach them to hate Jews is the holocaust: they simply thought that hating Jews is not a thing. And so they didn't teach their children to hate Jews either. So that line of passing down antisemitism was broken. And it was historically forgotten that what broke that line was the holocaust. Yet its still true that it was.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Quite simply it's due to the mythology of WW2.

 

[Chris35]

The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians
Can't really see how it works out.

1. The bible tells us quite clearly, about Gods plan for Israel.

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now h receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.

2. Jesus forgave them. Therefore what right do we have to judge or hate or pass sentence on the Jews( Not that we have a right anyway) if the one who went through it forgave.

32Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” c And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

We know that hating the Jews is out of line with Gods / Jesus's nature. Paul specifically says.

You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

So yes, there is a difference between a "true Christian" and a false Christian. Now I am sure there were a lot of Christians with the spirit of God during that time, and I am sure there were a lot of Christians without it.


The rest if it is outside the scope of a Christian. Why is the world stance changing towards the Jews? I don't know, could be a million reasons, and it don't matter imo.


While Christians in 21-st century be true Christians, when Bible prophesizes the opposite, that there would be falling away of the church at the end times.
This doesn't make antisemitism justifiable. It is not the nature of God to hate the Jews. Again the bible says God still loves the Jews.


I am only discussing the psychology of people that cause them to choose one interpretation of the Bible over the other. Right or wrong, it was traditional to choose antisemitic interpretations of the Bible

The psychology is simple really, people like to believe what's in-line with there own desires. This doesn't just include the bible. It is something a Christian should be aware of and carefully avoid while searching for truth.


But, instead of trying to answer this question, lets ask ourselves a different question. Regardless if its true or not, why would it be more appealing to our sensitivities to see Anne Frank in heaven and Hitler in hell? In other words, we are not asking who is actually in heaven or in hell, we are only asking the question about ourselves: namely our own sensitivities.


It's a different view point. All have sinned and fallen short, we all are deserving of he'll, Anne Frank is, Hitler is, and I am deserving of hell. If God forgives either who am I to say otherwise, if Hitler is in heaven is would welcome him with open arms.

What your referring to is apart of our fleshy nature but they go away as we start to understand, know God and confirm to his Word, not necessarily the sensitivities but the error in our thinking.

Eg. The correct way to respond again is, God loves them both, God desires both to be saved, we should do right to both regardless of how they treat us. We should hope they either of them change their ways and turn to God.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't think you can generalize about what "most Christians" think about this topic, since (just for example) one of the underlying reasons for believing that the Jews continue to be "God's chosen people" even after their widespread rejection of Christ is the popularity of dispensationalism among Christians who fetishize Jewishness, support Zionism/the secular state of Israel, etc. And that's a fine explanation, insofar as dispensationalists view salvation history as they do (read: if you're a dispensationalist, then all this pro-Jewish and pro-state of Israel stuff makes perfect sense), but it bears repeating that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived have not been dispensationalists or in any other way thought of Judaism as a salvific way of life.

So an explanation that could only show why a distinct minority of (modern) Christians have felt as they have cannot be used to generalize about "most Christians". That's no more a good explanation for anything than attributing all views that are retroactively called "antisemitic" to attitudes held about Jews in medieval European Christianity. That may be fine if you want to limit your explanation to why medieval European Christians are like that, but those same attitudes cannot be imputed to other people in other places and times. Mor Ephrem the Syrian did not write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", y'know? (His birth city of Nisibis being notably in the far S.E. of what is now Turkey, far away from the European part of that country, and only being separated from Qamishli, Syria by the border between Syria and Turkey which obviously wasn't there in the 4th century when Mor Ephrem flourished; nobody claims that Qamishli is a part of Europe.)

This is why I agree with our friend Ignatius the Kiwi that the roots of all of this stuff in the modern era is really in a certain way of looking at WWII. Y'know, that big war that Syriac, Armenian, Pontic Greek, etc. Christians are absolutely not responsible for.

 

[Aaron112]

Most Christians would say that Bible condemns antisemitism. Yet, starting from second century all the way throughout middle ages all the way till 19-th century and even beginning of 20-th century antisemitism was a mainstream belief among Christians.

Not a provable fact, that is not without too many probably false assumptions and false pre-sumptions.
True followers of YHVH, of JESUS (YESHUA), born by YHVH (born again) ,
Love YHVH and His Way, His People, His Torah, His THOUGHTS, HIS CHOICE !

 

[Aaron112]

The typical Christian answer is that "they were not true Christians". But this doesn't address the question of a timeline. Why would Christians in the middle ages not be true Christians, while Christians in 21-st century be true Christians
Can't really see how it works out.

More assumptions and/or pre-sumptions I guess. (understandably)
When Jesus Returns, Will Jesus Find Faith on Earth (Jesus Asked) ?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There has been a divide in both Christianity and Judaism concerning each other's
"love/hate" relationship.

In the first century, Jews turned Christians over to the Roman's for persecution, which
usually meant death.
This was common until 70AD during the Jewish dysphoria.

Before the 1st Crusade was officially made, Peter the Hermit led a crusade in Eastern Europe where he
and his crusaders slaughtered an entire village of Jews.
The Pope issued a papal bull declaring that no harm shall be done to Jews as the crusaders went to
the Holy Land.

Of course, more recent to our own time, we had the Holocaust.

That being said, there has been persecution of Christians living in the Holy Land
by the Israeli government since 1948. Christian businesses had their business licenses revoked
and turned over to Jews immigrating from Europe. Christian souvenir shops and tourist
agencies catering to Christian tourists, were now run by Jews.

Recently, the tide has turned and both Jews and Christians are more united than
ever before. Much has to do with the war with Hamas, and most Christians support
Israel's response after October 7th.

Lastly, keep in mind that Israel will always stand for what's good for Israel, period.
The suffering of Christians means nothing to the Israeli government unless if effects
them.

Persecution of Christians by both Muslims and the Israeli government is the main reason
why the population of Christians in the Holy Land has been reduced to becoming insignificant.

 

[Roman57]

There has been a divide in both Christianity and Judaism concerning each other's
"love/hate" relationship.

In the first century, Jews turned Christians over to the Roman's for persecution, which
usually meant death.
This was common until 70AD during the Jewish dysphoria.

Yeah, I agree that during 1-st century it was Jews persecuting Christians and not the other way around, since Christians didn't have political power to persecute Jews. From what I read, Christians obtained political power only after Constantine became Christian in the fourth century. Although Christian antisemitism was full sway from the second century onward, as evident from the writings of Church Fathers. But I guess in second and third centuries Christians didn't have the actual political power to persecute Jews, and their antisemitism was limitted to their writings. That doesn't change the fact that they would have persecutted them if they could. And of course when they did get political power to persecute them in the fourth century, that persecution lasted all the way till 20-th century and only ended by the holocaust.

Before the 1st Crusade was officially made, Peter the Hermit led a crusade in Eastern Europe where he
and his crusaders slaughtered an entire village of Jews.
The Pope issued a papal bull declaring that no harm shall be done to Jews as the crusaders went to
the Holy Land.

I haven't heard of Peter the Hermit. Could it be more of an exception than the rule where he said no harm should be done to the Jews? I always thought that throughout middle ages the vast majority of Christians especially popes hated the Jews, and Jews were heavily persecuted.

That being said, there has been persecution of Christians living in the Holy Land
by the Israeli government since 1948. Christian businesses had their business licenses revoked
and turned over to Jews immigrating from Europe. Christian souvenir shops and tourist
agencies catering to Christian tourists, were now run by Jews.

Yes that is also true. But it is insignificant compared to the other stuff since now you are talking about just one country and only the last century, whereas in case of Chrsitian persecution of the Jews it was all of Europe and it was almost 17 centuries.

Recently, the tide has turned and both Jews and Christians are more united than
ever before. Much has to do with the war with Hamas, and most Christians support
Israel's response after October 7th.

I think the big picture of what turned the tide is the holocaust, not October 7th. The response to October 7th is actually not so clear cut, with a lot of people supporting Hamas instead of Jews as a result (look at all the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses when I thought US is for Israel). But again, this is insignificant since this is about the past half a year, but I am talking about the big picture (where by big picture I mean the things on a scale of several years). So the big picture is that the attitude towards the Jews massively changed after the holocaust. All those little bickering nowdays is quite minor compared to this since, no matter how many pro-Hamas demonstrations they have, nobody would advocate to putting Jews into second class citizen status, the way they were in the Middle Ages.

Lastly, keep in mind that Israel will always stand for what's good for Israel, period.
The suffering of Christians means nothing to the Israeli government unless if effects
them.

Persecution of Christians by both Muslims and the Israeli government is the main reason
why the population of Christians in the Holy Land has been reduced to becoming insignificant.

That is true. But that doesn't change the stuff I talked about in this thread. So the big picture is the following:

1) Starting from 2-nd century all the way through 19-th century, Christians and Jews hated each other. But, politically speaking, not everyone had a power to execute their hatred. More precisely,

a) In the first century, Jews had a power to execute the hatred against Christians but Christians didn't have the power to respond

b) From fourth through 19-th century, Christians had power to execute the hatred of Jews but Jews didn't have power to respond

2) After the holocaust, things changed and Christians stopped hating the Jews. But that change was unilateral: Jews didn't respond to it by liking the Christians. However, again, Jews don't have political power to execute their hatred of Christians UNLESS we are talking about the land of Israel. So we see Christians being persecutted in Israel which is minor compared to the persecution Jews faced throughout Europe.

 

[Roman57]

one of the underlying reasons for believing that the Jews continue to be "God's chosen people" even after their widespread rejection of Christ is the popularity of dispensationalism among Christians

That is interesting thought. Particularly since dispensationalism is very common in US, and people like Jews in US, but dispensationalism, by default, is not believed by Orthodox (just like it is not believed by Catholics either) and so Russia (which is Orthodox) is still antisemitic.

But then the question is: what about Americans that don't believe in dispensationalism? How come they aren't antisemitic? Its true though that they might not support Israel. For example, Seventh Day Adventists, even the ones in US, don't support Israel, precisely because they reject dispensationalism. Yet, you don't find Seventh Day Adventists in the US engaging in the type of antisemitism you find among people (of all faiths) in Russia. Could it be that since the majority of Christians in the US are dispensationalists, they set up a pro-Jewish climate, which resulted in everyone in US liking Jews, regardless of their actual faith. So Adventists might "say" they don't listen to sunday-goers, but on some subconscious level they still do, its called herd mentality.

In any case, if we do explore the idea that dispensationalism is the reason for liking the Jews, then the question to ask is: when did dispensationalism become prominent? Was it before the holocaust or after the holocaust? If it became prominent before the holocaust, did people like the Jews back then the way they do now? Or if it became prominent after the holocaust, could it be that holocaust "caused" people to look at dispensationalism since they were subconsciously looking for reasons to start liking the Jews?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah, I agree that during 1-st century it was Jews persecuting Christians and not the other way around, since Christians didn't have political power to persecute Jews. From what I read, Christians obtained political power only after Constantine became Christian in the fourth century. Although Christian antisemitism was full sway from the second century onward, as evident from the writings of Church Fathers. But I guess in second and third centuries Christians didn't have the actual political power to persecute Jews, and their antisemitism was limitted to their writings. That doesn't change the fact that they would have persecutted them if they could. And of course when they did get political power to persecute them in the fourth century, that persecution lasted all the way till 20-th century and only ended by the holocaust.


I haven't heard of Peter the Hermit. Could it be more of an exception than the rule where he said no harm should be done to the Jews? I always thought that throughout middle ages the vast majority of Christians especially popes hated the Jews, and Jews were heavily persecuted.



Yes that is also true. But it is insignificant compared to the other stuff since now you are talking about just one country and only the last century, whereas in case of Chrsitian persecution of the Jews it was all of Europe and it was almost 17 centuries.



I think the big picture of what turned the tide is the holocaust, not October 7th. The response to October 7th is actually not so clear cut, with a lot of people supporting Hamas instead of Jews as a result (look at all the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses when I thought US is for Israel). But again, this is insignificant since this is about the past half a year, but I am talking about the big picture (where by big picture I mean the things on a scale of several years). So the big picture is that the attitude towards the Jews massively changed after the holocaust. All those little bickering nowdays is quite minor compared to this since, no matter how many pro-Hamas demonstrations they have, nobody would advocate to putting Jews into second class citizen status, the way they were in the Middle Ages.



That is true. But that doesn't change the stuff I talked about in this thread. So the big picture is the following:

1) Starting from 2-nd century all the way through 19-th century, Christians and Jews hated each other. But, politically speaking, not everyone had a power to execute their hatred. More precisely,

a) In the first century, Jews had a power to execute the hatred against Christians but Christians didn't have the power to respond

b) From fourth through 19-th century, Christians had power to execute the hatred of Jews but Jews didn't have power to respond

2) After the holocaust, things changed and Christians stopped hating the Jews. But that change was unilateral: Jews didn't respond to it by liking the Christians. However, again, Jews don't have political power to execute their hatred of Christians UNLESS we are talking about the land of Israel. So we see Christians being persecutted in Israel which is minor compared to the persecution Jews faced throughout Europe.

Hatred often begins with experience. It is probable that Christian antisemitism developed with the death of Christ.
However, condemnation of Christianity among Jews began early on as well. The rejection of the Septuagint as
being an authorized source of the Old Testament by the rabbinical school in Jamai, was the attempt to distant
Judaism from Christianity. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Schools showed clearly that the Septuagint
was indeed treated as authorities for Greek Speaking Jews before the dysphoria.

I agree that the holocaust played a major role in the change of attitude among Christians, but antisemitism
still remained in the Christian church, especially in the southern United States.

After October 7th, the mood shifted greatly and support for Israel among Christians grew.

As far as the campus protests, most of the students don't know what they're talking about.
When you hear them shouting, "from river to sea," they have no idea that it means the Jordan
River and the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the elimination of Israel, which is what Hamas
desires.

You'll never see the protestors demanding that Iran stop supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons.
They have no clue what this war is about. All they're demanding is a cease fire, but this means Israel must
accept being attacked constantly. Those women protestors have no clue what life would be like for them if they
lived in Gaza, Lebanon or any other Islamic Nation.

 

[Godcrazy]

Then maybe its the other way. Before the holocaust, parents used to teach children to hate Jews so it passed from generation to generation. Then, after the holocaust, that particular generation felt sorry for the Jews so they didn't teach their children to hate Jews. But their children didn't realize that the only reason their parents didn't teach them to hate Jews is the holocaust: they simply thought that hating Jews is not a thing. And so they didn't teach their children to hate Jews either. So that line of passing down antisemitism was broken. And it was historically forgotten that what broke that line was the holocaust. Yet its still true that it was.

I don't think hate for a race or people is right, no matter what. I think God is clear about what he tilerates, and the consequences if one doesn't repent i don't think he makes a difference of race or people there. I think it's good to have that in mind. And just because, it doesn't mean this is ripped off