After killing Christians, the Jews would...

[huldah153]

You have only proved my point. And no it is not true that all Christians have been involved in the persecution of the Jews. Some groups have no record of persecution at all.

The only group I can think of was the British Puritans of the 1600s.

 

[kivi]

The only group I can think of was the British Puritans of the 1600s.

kivi says: I have no idea what you are talking about. It was the Puritan Commons under the leadership of Cromwell that let the Jews back into England after an expulsion that last some 360 years (expelled in 1290, re-admitted in 1656).

 

[wayseer]

Rabbi Yose who lived during the second century AD states ... "He who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah, and he who hated scholars and their disciples; and that false prophet and those slanderers, will have no part in the future world." According to Bacher this was directed against the Hebrew Christians.

This you 'cut and pasted' from Wikipedia. Not only have you failed to acknowledge your source you are also a troll - it appears you have posted exactly the same OP on here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

kivi says: I have no idea what you are talking about. It was the Puritan Commons under the leadership of Cromwell that let the Jews back into England after an expulsion that last some 360 years (expelled in 1290, re-admitted in 1656).

Would that be the same Puritans as here?

This Christian sect's view of Hellfire is almost the same as the Muslim's version all because of JESUS using the word "Gehenna" in the Gospels it seems.
That greek word for "gehenna" almost appears to be similar to the greek words "gennesarat" and "gennhmata" in the NT. Btw, how do the Messianics view the Hellfire/Lake of Fire in the NT/NC?. Thanks and Shalom.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

Matt 1:1 Scroll of genesewV/1078 of Jesus, annointed Son of-David, Son of-Abraham 2 Abraham generates/egennhsen <1080> the Isaac, Isaac yet generates/egennhsen <1080> the Jacob, Jacob yet generates/egennhsen <1080> the Judah and the brothers of him.

Matt 23:33 Serpents generation/gennh-mata <1081> of vipers how ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV

2 Corinthians 9:10 The yet one-supplying seed to the one sowing, and bread into feeding he shall be furnishing, and he shall be multiplying the seed of ye, and he shall be causing to grow fruit/gennh-mata <1081> of the righteousness of ye, [Luke 21:18]

http://www.apuritansmind.com/MainPage.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/HateChrist.htm

In HELL there are no second chances.
But on this web page
you can escape the flames of His wrath.

 

[GuardianShua]

This you 'cut and pasted' from Wikipedia. Not only have you failed to acknowledge your source you are also a troll - it appears you have posted exactly the same OP on here.

Does talking about history make a person a troll? And where is it written that a person has to acknowledge there source of a quote. And Wikipedia is public domain. And besides that, most of the words are my own.

 

[kivi]

Would that be the same Puritans as here?

kivi says: Very much so, the Puritan colonization into the Americas and the Puritan Revolution in England were all part of the same effort to set up G-d's Kingdom. The Puritans were, in part, driven by their own end-of-the-world mythology [a common afffliction of Chirstianity]. In their case, they believed that for Christ to come, the Jews had to be scattered thrughout all the Nations of the world. Since England had been officially Jew-free since the Expulsion of 1290, the Puritans believed this delayed the 2nd coming of Christ. So, Cromwell and the Puritan Parliment [the Long Parliment] allowed re-settlement of the Jews in 1655.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England
Also read Perry Miller's: Errand into the Wilderness
http://www.librarything.com/work/1541101
and Hugh Trevor-Roper: The Crisis of the 17tht Century
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=719

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

kivi says: Very much so, the Puritan colonization into the Americas and the Puritan Revolution in England were all part of the same effort to set up G-d's Kingdom. The Puritans were, in part, driven by their own end-of-the-world mythology [a common afffliction of Chirstianity]. In their case, they believed that for Christ to come, the Jews had to be scattered thrughout all the Nations of the world. Since England had been officially Jew-free since the Expulsion of 1290, the Puritans believed this delayed the 2nd coming of Christ. So, Cromwell and the Puritan Parliment [the Long Parliment] allowed re-settlement of the Jews in 1655.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England
Also read Perry Miller's: Errand into the Wilderness
http://www.librarything.com/work/1541101
and Hugh Trevor-Roper: The Crisis of the 17tht Century
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=719

Thanks for those links. I am trying to find out when the "Eternal Hellfire" actually started in Christianity, as I was under the impression the Roman Catholics did as a fear tactic, but it appears to have been started by Tertullian, then Augustine then a horrible Latin Vulgate translation by Jerome.

Never really looked into this before.
This was one of the first links to come up on a google search:

http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/hellfire2.htm

...........................However, even though many, probably the majority, of the church leaders in the first few centuries believed like Clement and Origen, that God eventually would save ALL, there was already a small minority of Christians who believed in the doctrine of eternal torment of sinners. One "Christian" leader, a bitter, vengeful Latin Church father named Terullian wrote in 203 A.D.:

"How I shall admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many kings . . . groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness, so many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in raging fire." (de Spectaculis, 30)


Two very different cultures divided the early Church, the Greek and the Latin. "The Greek philosophers were mostly concerned with the perfect (ideal) man. . . The blind spot of the Latin Christians was their belief that in order to maintain law and order, it was necessary to threaten men with the worst possible tortures in the afterlife. This obsession with maintaining law and order appears to have been a motivating force behind the Latin idea of God's eternal retribution upon sinners." Ibid. Chapter 4, pg. 6.

It was only the Latin school (based in Carthage, but which included Rome) that taught the doctrine of endless punishment. Augustine, converted to Christianity in 386 A.D., had become "the 'champion' of endless torments, and was the most influential of the Latin Church fathers. . . Augustine's rigorous views stated that God had predestined a few for salvation but for most to be tormented eternally." Creation's Jubilee, Stephen Jones, Chapter 3, pp 9,10.

Jerome, a Bible scholar who was born in 347 A.D. in Italy, re-translated the Latin Bible (from the Old Latin version), in 390-406 A.D. This is now known as the Latin Vulgate which became a classic. However, it is through this Latin Vulgate version that we inherited the words "eternal" and "everlasting" as INCORRECT translations of the Greek word "eon", a word that means a period of time with a beginning and an end, NOT eternity!
​

 

[GuardianShua]

kivi says: Very much so, the Puritan colonization into the Americas and the Puritan Revolution in England were all part of the same effort to set up G-d's Kingdom. The Puritans were, in part, driven by their own end-of-the-world mythology [a common afffliction of Chirstianity]. In their case, they believed that for Christ to come, the Jews had to be scattered thrughout all the Nations of the world. Since England had been officially Jew-free since the Expulsion of 1290, the Puritans believed this delayed the 2nd coming of Christ. So, Cromwell and the Puritan Parliment [the Long Parliment] allowed re-settlement of the Jews in 1655.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England
Also read Perry Miller's: Errand into the Wilderness
http://www.librarything.com/work/1541101
and Hugh Trevor-Roper: The Crisis of the 17tht Century
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=719

You need to understand Kivi that Christianity was plagued with Gnosticism, Paganism, and secret societies, even before Christ died on the cross.

 

[S Walch]

Found this little article on this subject:

http://jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm

Especially interesting is the quote:

Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest"

 

[GuardianShua]

Found this little article on this subject:

http://jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm

Especially interesting is the quote:

Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest"

I saw that the Witnesses were doing an article on the subject, so I decided to do one myself.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Michael:

To sum up various points you have made in this thread:



1. You concede that all branches of the historical Chrstian church have respectively taken turns killing Jews, those branches being:

• Eastern Orthodox
• Catholics
• Mainstream Protestants

2. You concede that Judaizers (meaning those believers in JC who believe gentiles who obey all the laws in Torah) were wiped out of existence early in Church history and have only now, after almost 2000 years, started to reappear in any numbers worth noting.

3. You make a claim which you can not support that Jews killed the early believers in JC (or the later Judaizers).

I tried googling point number three, and could find no reference anywhere to Jews killing Christians or Judaizers, except for the usual Blood Libel. The closest I could find, the only thing even remotely similar to your claim, was in the book called Jewish Reponses to Early Christians by Claudia Setzer, on p. 93, which speaks of an INDIRECT, figurative sort of killing, whereby putting the new believers out of the synagogue, and removing from them the protected status that the Jewish community had with the Romans, they put them at risk of death by the Romans.

But that's it.

I'm not sure where you got your quote from. Its on the internet only two places: this forum, and crosswalk.com where you also posted it. You are asking us to simply trust you got it right and in context, and I don't. But assuming for a moment that said Rabbi did pen such words, it would not make them historically accurate. Consider for a moment: The Chrstian scriptures were all originally written in GREEK -- how would the apostles have written the sacred name of G-d in Hebrew if they are writing in Greek? There would have been no sacred name of G-d for the Jews to carefully remove. The story makes no sense, and is almost assuredly a tall tale.

Hoping you and yours are well.

 

[GuardianShua]

Michael:

To sum up various points you have made in this thread:



1. You concede that all branches of the historical Chrstian church have respectively taken turns killing Jews, those branches being:

• Eastern Orthodox
• Catholics
• Mainstream Protestants

2. You concede that Judaizers (meaning those believers in JC who believe gentiles who obey all the laws in Torah) were wiped out of existence early in Church history and have only now, after almost 2000 years, started to reappear in any numbers worth noting.

3. You make a claim which you can not support that Jews killed the early believers in JC (or the later Judaizers).

I tried googling point number three, and could find no reference anywhere to Jews killing Christians or Judaizers, except for the usual Blood Libel. The closest I could find, the only thing even remotely similar to your claim, was in the book called Jewish Reponses to Early Christians by Claudia Setzer, on p. 93, which speaks of an INDIRECT, figurative sort of killing, whereby putting the new believers out of the synagogue, and removing from them the protected status that the Jewish community had with the Romans, they put them at risk of death by the Romans.

But that's it.

I'm not sure where you got your quote from. Its on the internet only two places: this forum, and crosswalk.com where you also posted it. You are asking us to simply trust you got it right and in context, and I don't. But assuming for a moment that said Rabbi did pen such words, it would not make them historically accurate. Consider for a moment: The Chrstian scriptures were all originally written in GREEK -- how would the apostles have written the sacred name of G-d in Hebrew if they are writing in Greek? There would have been no sacred name of G-d for the Jews to carefully remove. The story makes no sense, and is almost assuredly a tall tale.

Hoping you and yours are well.

It's good to hear from you again. The killing of Christians by Jews took place for only a short time. From about 35AD to 135 AD did the Jews seek out Christians to kill them. The disciple Paul was at first involved in the persecution of Christians at first. The first Christians were Hebrews, but they were called converts to Judaism at first, and then Christians later on. New testament scripture was first written in Hebrew and then shortly afterward other languages such as Greek. Hebrew was an active language until about 135 AD.

 

[revanneosl]

GerTzedek, that was a masterful summing-up of MichaelTheeArchAngel's points.

I agree with you on point #3. I've searched far beyond Google, and there is no historical evidence of any kind of systematic killing of early Christians by Jews. Perhaps there were a few isolated incidents of mob violence, but even as early as the 1st century CE, the Rabbi's had come to the conclusion that capital punishment, even for the crime of blasphemy, was repugnant.

And for the record, there is absolutely no evidence that any book of the New Testament was first written in any language other than koine Greek.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's good to hear from you again. The killing of Christians by Jews took place for only a short time. From about 35AD to 135 AD did the Jews seek out Christians to kill them. The disciple Paul was at first involved in the persecution of Christians at first. The first Christians were Hebrews, but they were called converts to Judaism at first, and then Christians later on. New testament scripture was first written in Hebrew and then shortly afterward other languages such as Greek. Hebrew was an active language until about 135 AD.

No proof of that and I will stick with the Koine Greek thank you very much.

Btw, what did JESUS mean here concerning those "serpents" would be crucifying Christ-ians? I didn't think Jews did that. Just curious.

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning/apostellw <649> toward ye Prophets and Wisemen and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing/apokteneite <615> (5692) and ye shall be Crucifying,..............."

Reve 11:7 `And whenever they should be finishing/teleswsin <5055> (5661) the testimony of them, the wild-beast, the one ascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them, battle, and shall be conquering them, and it shall be Killing/apoktenei <615> (5692) Them

 

[GuardianShua]

GerTzedek, that was a masterful summing-up of MichaelTheeArchAngel's points.

I agree with you on point #3. I've searched far beyond Google, and there is no historical evidence of any kind of systematic killing of early Christians by Jews. Perhaps there were a few isolated incidents of mob violence, but even as early as the 1st century CE, the Rabbi's had come to the conclusion that capital punishment, even for the crime of blasphemy, was repugnant.

And for the record, there is absolutely no evidence that any book of the New Testament was first written in any language other than koine Greek.

It is recorded in the New Testament that the priesthood persecuted the Christians. Because the message first went to the Jews, and Hebrew was the language; therefore it was first recorded in Hebrew.

 

[revanneosl]

The Jewish persecution of Christians in the early decades of the movement didn't extend to killing them. Under Roman law, the local religious authorities were no more empowered to execute heretics than you or I. The Romans were quite selfish in those days, and kept the right to execute capital punishment all to themselves.

Historical data show that the vast majority even of literate Jews in the 1st & 2nd centuries were nevertheless illiterate in the Hebrew language. The universal language of the Roman Empire was koine Greek. If one could read at all, that was the language in which one could read. Even in the synagogues of Israel, it was the Greek-language version of the Torah (the Septuagint) that was read at worship.

Perhaps you have noticed that when Jesus & Paul & others in the New Testament are depicted as quoting Old Testament texts, and then you look up those texts in your own copy of the Old Testament, the texts do not match? This is not because Jesus, Paul & others didn't know their Old Testament very well. It's because they are quoting the Septuagint version - which is not the version that is in your bible.

The Jewish population of the ancient near east didn't return to using Hebrew texts for their bibles until sometime during the 2nd century CE.

 

[GuardianShua]

The Jewish persecution of Christians in the early decades of the movement didn't extend to killing them. Under Roman law, the local religious authorities were no more empowered to execute heretics than you or I. The Romans were quite selfish in those days, and kept the right to execute capital punishment all to themselves.

Historical data show that the vast majority even of literate Jews in the 1st & 2nd centuries were nevertheless illiterate in the Hebrew language. The universal language of the Roman Empire was koine Greek. If one could read at all, that was the language in which one could read. Even in the synagogues of Israel, it was the Greek-language version of the Torah (the Septuagint) that was read at worship.

Perhaps you have noticed that when Jesus & Paul & others in the New Testament are depicted as quoting Old Testament texts, and then you look up those texts in your own copy of the Old Testament, the texts do not match? This is not because Jesus, Paul & others didn't know their Old Testament very well. It's because they are quoting the Septuagint version - which is not the version that is in your bible.

The Jewish population of the ancient near east didn't return to using Hebrew texts for their bibles until sometime during the 2nd century CE.

Your information is false, because the Jews who believe that an education is a command spoken by the prophets. The misquotes are a result of the Catholic Church involvement in scripture. Many people have read the scriptures, but how well do they understand what they have read?

 

[GuardianShua]

GerTzedek, that was a masterful summing-up of MichaelTheeArchAngel's points.

I agree with you on point #3. I've searched far beyond Google, and there is no historical evidence of any kind of systematic killing of early Christians by Jews. Perhaps there were a few isolated incidents of mob violence, but even as early as the 1st century CE, the Rabbi's had come to the conclusion that capital punishment, even for the crime of blasphemy, was repugnant.

And for the record, there is absolutely no evidence that any book of the New Testament was first written in any language other than koine Greek.

The Aramaic and Hebrew were very much alike in the days of Yahshua. Here is a resource to view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

 

[revanneosl]

Your information is false, because the Jews who believe that an education is a command spoken by the prophets. The misquotes are a result of the Catholic Church involvement in scripture. Many people have read the scriptures, but how well do they understand what they have read.

No, my brother, your information is false. Cetainly it was considered a mitzvah to educate ones children, if it were at all possible to do so, in late Antiquity, just as it is today. However, educated Jews in late Antiquity received a Roman education. They learned Greek. I'm not saying that nobody knew Hebrew back then, but it certainly was not many. And it certainly was not carpenters, fishermen, tax-collectors, or any other of the poor folk of the Gallilee.

Also, it is easy to tell a text that has been translated into another language. It just doesn't read the same as a text that you read in its original language.

There is zero textual evidence that the New Testament scriptures were written in any other language than Greek.

The Aramaic and Hebrew were very much alike in the days of Yahshua. Here is a resource to view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

And none of this has anything at all to do with Aramaic, which appears in the New Testament only in two verses of the Gospel according to Matthew.

.....though, on second though, I'll give you this. In those two verses, Jesus is quoting the book of Psalms. If he only knew the Psalms in the Greek LXX version, then why's he quoting them in Aramaic?

okay, hmmmmm, now you're making me think about this a little more.

But still, even if Jesus was literate in Hebrew, we have none of his writings. And even if the Apostles were literate in Hebrew, there is no textual evidence that the New Testament books were written in another language than Greek.

Since you're not one of those folks who spurns Wikipedia (which I think is a remarkably well-written and -researched source, at least for the subjects in which I am expert enough to judge) I will give you, for your link, another link, which I commend to you to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lxx

Grace & Peace to you

 

[GuardianShua]

No, my brother, your information is false. Cetainly it was considered a mitzvah to educate ones children, if it were at all possible to do so, in late Antiquity, just as it is today. However, educated Jews in late Antiquity received a Roman education. They learned Greek. I'm not saying that nobody knew Hebrew back then, but it certainly was not many. And it certainly was not carpenters, fishermen, tax-collectors, or any other of the poor folk of the Gallilee.

Also, it is easy to tell a text that has been translated into another language. It just doesn't read the same as a text that you read in its original language.

There is zero textual evidence that the New Testament scriptures were written in any other language than Greek.



And none of this has anything at all to do with Aramaic, which appears in the New Testament only in two verses of the Gospel according to Matthew.

.....though, on second though, I'll give you this. In those two verses, Jesus is quoting the book of Psalms. If he only knew the Psalms in the Greek LXX version, then why's he quoting them in Aramaic?

okay, hmmmmm, now you're making me think about this a little more.

But still, even if Jesus was literate in Hebrew, we have none of his writings. And even if the Apostles were literate in Hebrew, there is no textual evidence that the New Testament books were written in another language than Greek.

Since you're not one of those folks who spurns Wikipedia (which I think is a remarkably well-written and -researched source, at least for the subjects in which I am expert enough to judge) I will give you, for your link, another link, which I commend to you to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lxx

Grace & Peace to you

The early church forefathers claim that the disciple Matthew wrote the words of Yahshua in Hebrew. And then there is also this record of Jews removing God's name and burning the rest of the New Testament scriptures. The lack of proof does not make my claim false, and there is those two testimonies for evidence.