- May 26, 2005
- 321
- 47
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
When one is asked what is the most antisemitic gospel, the usual answer is Gospel of John. When one asks what is the most antisemitic verse, the usual answer is Matthew 27:25. Which is kind of interesting: if they say the most antisemitic gospel is the one of John, why would the most antisemitic verse be in Matthew?
I will take the opposite stance. I will say that the most antisemitic gospel is Matthew, yet I will say that the most antisemitic verse is John 8:44. The reason the most antisemitic gospel is Matthew is because Matthew has far more passages against the Jews than John ever did: for one thing, Matthew has the whole Chapter 23 devoted to just that. On the other hand, the reason I say that the most antisemitic verse is John 8:44 is because it is the only verse that says Jews are not human but literally demonic. As far as Matthew 27:25, yes their sin was grave, but they were still human as they were committing that sin. But John 8:44 is like wow, that scared the hell out of me (and this was the one single verse that got my attention when I was an atheist and which eventually led me to become a Christian). And yes, John 8:44 is far scarrier than all of Matthew 23 put together. So I might consider returning to John its status as the most antisemitic gospel just because of that one verse. But, outside of that, nope, if its not for that one verse, then Matthew would be the most antisemitic gospel. So if they didn't even notice John 8:44 when they made Matthew 27:25 into the most antisemitic verse, then I don't see how they can possibly make Gospel of John the most antisemitic gospel.
Apart from the subject of "which verses are antisemitic", there is a different subject: "do you want to re-interpret those verses". And in that second subject there is inconsistency too. As far as John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, they re-interpretted both of those verses in order to avoid antisemitic implications. Yet, there are other verses that they didn't re-interpret, and still interpret them in antisemitic way: namely, John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22. Again, my view is "opposite" to theirs. I won't see in John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22 those antisemitic statements people read off of those verses, I think they are digging a bit too deep for that. On the other hand, the antisemitic statements attributed to John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 are quite apparent and it would take quite a bit of denial not to see them.
Lets look at John 5:43. Jesus never said that "another" is referring to the antichrist. The way I read it is that it doesn't talk about antichrist at all, it talks about anybody they regard highly, be it their friend or their favorite teacher. Notice that he said "if", not "when", and he said "a", not "the". Furthermore, in the verse 44 that follows, Jesus used an expression "receive glory from one another", which again indicates that He talks about their equals, not some ruler.
As far as Matthew 21:18-22, my plain reading of it is that it is what happens to any individual who doesn't bear fruit. Because it was one tree, to represent an individual, instead of a forest that would be representing a group of people. Now, they apparently cite Jewish thought of how fig tree represents the nation of Israel. I guess I will take their word for it that some Jewish soures use it that way (although I would have no idea about it if I didn't read Christians mentioning it). But you see, Jews use a lot of other symbolism for a lot of other things. So why is it Christians don't appeal to Jewish symbolism in any other context except for this one. Sounds like its something they were taught generation by generation -- and this teaching originated from the antisemitism in the middle ages.
But if they are so eager to reject antisemitism that they want to re-interpret John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, then why don't they also re-interpret those passages I just talked about?
Actually I know why. Because, historically, it was Matthew 27:25 and, less often, John 8:44, that they cited when they burned the sinagogues. So, in order to prevent future antisemitism, they had to re-interpret those two verses. But, as far as John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22, they weren't cited that often during synagogue burning, so there is no need to re-interpret them. But maybe there is a reason why they were cited less often: because the supposed condemnation of the Jews from those verses is a lot less obvious, as I just pointed out. And then we get an irony: verses that "obviously" condemn the Jews get re-interpretted, while verses that "via some remote speculation" condemn the Jews retain their remote speculative antisemitic interpretation.
To complicate it further, lets ask another question: what is more antisemitic, to say that Jews killed Jesus or to say that Jewish messiah is antichrist? Most people would think of the claim "Jews killed Jesus" as the example of antisemitism. But, to me, the idea that Jewish messiah is antichrist is a lot more scary. Because you see, if you go into the synagogue, they aren't reinacting the murder of Jesus (contrary to some of the claims in middle ages). But they "do" pray for the coming of the Messiah. Now, since their messiah is the antichrist, they basically pray every day for antichrist to come, this is quite a bit scary isn't it. A lot more scary than some event 2000 years ago.
However, despite the fact that I think Jews are a lot scarier for wanting antichrist than for killing Jesus, I do NOT believe that John 5:43 is scary at all. Why? Simply because I don't think John 5:43 talks about the antichrist (see above). It just talks about vanity, and no, vanity is not scary. Not to me anyway. So it is ironic how I disagree in two opposite ways. Most people think "Jews killed Jesus" is scary, I think "Jews are awaiting the antichrist" is scary. But, on the other hand, most people retain antisemitic interpretation of John 5:43 and reject the one of Matthew 27:25, while I want to reject antisemitic interpretation of John 5:43 while retain the one of Matthew 27:25.
I will take the opposite stance. I will say that the most antisemitic gospel is Matthew, yet I will say that the most antisemitic verse is John 8:44. The reason the most antisemitic gospel is Matthew is because Matthew has far more passages against the Jews than John ever did: for one thing, Matthew has the whole Chapter 23 devoted to just that. On the other hand, the reason I say that the most antisemitic verse is John 8:44 is because it is the only verse that says Jews are not human but literally demonic. As far as Matthew 27:25, yes their sin was grave, but they were still human as they were committing that sin. But John 8:44 is like wow, that scared the hell out of me (and this was the one single verse that got my attention when I was an atheist and which eventually led me to become a Christian). And yes, John 8:44 is far scarrier than all of Matthew 23 put together. So I might consider returning to John its status as the most antisemitic gospel just because of that one verse. But, outside of that, nope, if its not for that one verse, then Matthew would be the most antisemitic gospel. So if they didn't even notice John 8:44 when they made Matthew 27:25 into the most antisemitic verse, then I don't see how they can possibly make Gospel of John the most antisemitic gospel.
Apart from the subject of "which verses are antisemitic", there is a different subject: "do you want to re-interpret those verses". And in that second subject there is inconsistency too. As far as John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, they re-interpretted both of those verses in order to avoid antisemitic implications. Yet, there are other verses that they didn't re-interpret, and still interpret them in antisemitic way: namely, John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22. Again, my view is "opposite" to theirs. I won't see in John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22 those antisemitic statements people read off of those verses, I think they are digging a bit too deep for that. On the other hand, the antisemitic statements attributed to John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25 are quite apparent and it would take quite a bit of denial not to see them.
Lets look at John 5:43. Jesus never said that "another" is referring to the antichrist. The way I read it is that it doesn't talk about antichrist at all, it talks about anybody they regard highly, be it their friend or their favorite teacher. Notice that he said "if", not "when", and he said "a", not "the". Furthermore, in the verse 44 that follows, Jesus used an expression "receive glory from one another", which again indicates that He talks about their equals, not some ruler.
As far as Matthew 21:18-22, my plain reading of it is that it is what happens to any individual who doesn't bear fruit. Because it was one tree, to represent an individual, instead of a forest that would be representing a group of people. Now, they apparently cite Jewish thought of how fig tree represents the nation of Israel. I guess I will take their word for it that some Jewish soures use it that way (although I would have no idea about it if I didn't read Christians mentioning it). But you see, Jews use a lot of other symbolism for a lot of other things. So why is it Christians don't appeal to Jewish symbolism in any other context except for this one. Sounds like its something they were taught generation by generation -- and this teaching originated from the antisemitism in the middle ages.
But if they are so eager to reject antisemitism that they want to re-interpret John 8:44 and Matthew 27:25, then why don't they also re-interpret those passages I just talked about?
Actually I know why. Because, historically, it was Matthew 27:25 and, less often, John 8:44, that they cited when they burned the sinagogues. So, in order to prevent future antisemitism, they had to re-interpret those two verses. But, as far as John 5:43 and Matthew 21:18-22, they weren't cited that often during synagogue burning, so there is no need to re-interpret them. But maybe there is a reason why they were cited less often: because the supposed condemnation of the Jews from those verses is a lot less obvious, as I just pointed out. And then we get an irony: verses that "obviously" condemn the Jews get re-interpretted, while verses that "via some remote speculation" condemn the Jews retain their remote speculative antisemitic interpretation.
To complicate it further, lets ask another question: what is more antisemitic, to say that Jews killed Jesus or to say that Jewish messiah is antichrist? Most people would think of the claim "Jews killed Jesus" as the example of antisemitism. But, to me, the idea that Jewish messiah is antichrist is a lot more scary. Because you see, if you go into the synagogue, they aren't reinacting the murder of Jesus (contrary to some of the claims in middle ages). But they "do" pray for the coming of the Messiah. Now, since their messiah is the antichrist, they basically pray every day for antichrist to come, this is quite a bit scary isn't it. A lot more scary than some event 2000 years ago.
However, despite the fact that I think Jews are a lot scarier for wanting antichrist than for killing Jesus, I do NOT believe that John 5:43 is scary at all. Why? Simply because I don't think John 5:43 talks about the antichrist (see above). It just talks about vanity, and no, vanity is not scary. Not to me anyway. So it is ironic how I disagree in two opposite ways. Most people think "Jews killed Jesus" is scary, I think "Jews are awaiting the antichrist" is scary. But, on the other hand, most people retain antisemitic interpretation of John 5:43 and reject the one of Matthew 27:25, while I want to reject antisemitic interpretation of John 5:43 while retain the one of Matthew 27:25.
Last edited:
