0pkt0 #fundie

"...and about the holocaust, God had to allow it to happen, I am sure He did not want it, but the jews asked for it themselves. remember when Christ was crusified and pilot asked who they want released, and they said barabus, and pilot said i find no fault in this man whom u call Jesus, so he could not crusify Him, but they shouted, "His blood is on us and on our children" this is the very curse that they bought on themselves... :/"

77 comments

old comment by The L

1. That only appears in 1 out of 4 Gospels. It's quite likely to have been added later. The obvious reason this would be done is to say "See? We don't blame Rome for killing Jesus! Nope! Those other guys did it. We're cool with Rome. We're not traitors to the Empire. Nosiree." Astonishingly, it worked--Tiberius became the first Christian emperor of Rome in the 4th century, soon followed by Constantine, who actually made it a capital offense not to be a Christian.

2. "Us and our children" could be referring to only their generation and the one immediately following it, NOT people living 2000 years later. In fact, it makes a LOT more sense to assume it doesn't implicate anyone but those individuals who were actually speaking, and the children they had at the time they were speaking it. Not kids they had later, and certainly not the Jews who were regularly burned at the stake for being Jews in the Middle Ages. And definitely not the concentration camp victims of the Third Reich.

3. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Since the Gospel of Luke was first written after that, it's quite likely this was the "divine" retribution Luke had in mind.

4. Pilate crucified an average of I think about 3000 Jewish rebels per day. When the Jews came up and said "This guy Jesus said he's a king and that's high treason," Pilate probably didn't have the grand dialogue we see in the Gospels. He probably just said, "OK, crucify him. NEXT!" and that was that. Note that this further supports the idea in point 1 that the scene described probably was added in later, when the early Christians were considered traitors to the Roman Empire.

5. It's unspeakably cruel to justify the torture and execution of innocent Jewish people that lasted almost 2000 years (and ended with the Holocaust) with a single sentence that a bunch of Jewish people are believed to have said 2000 years ago, according to a single literary source for which we have no supporting evidence whatsoever. It's equally as cruel as, say, the use by 19th-century slaveowners of the "curse of Ham" passage to describe why black people "deserved" to be slaves.

old comment by

> but they shouted, "His blood is on us and on our children" this is the very curse that they bought on themselves... :/"

So random people shouting ominous things can cause a curse to fall on you?

(Note that the people who said that in the Bible were not exactly prophet types. Just random bystanders making an observation.)

Worse, it's possible it's actually a curse that leads to massacre of millions of people?

(Note that the line just basically says that their descendants shall be held responsible. It says nothing about their systematic eradication.)

One that can't even be wiped away by Jesus himself?

(Remember that bit about "Forgive them because they don't know what they're doing"?)

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

According to the bible, it was god's will that Jesus die in order to save mankind (which doesn't even make sense in itself, but let's run with this for a moment), meaning that the people were, in fact, doing exactly as god wanted. Not only that, but it was actually the ROMANS who carried out the execution. Even if the Jews had all banded together and killed god's son, why wouldn't he punish the ones who were actually responsible instead of waiting for nearly 2 thousand years to punish their innocent offspring? And, finally, how the fuck could your god claim to be superior to humans if he himself would subject his own creation to such barbaric conditions? Are you honestly suggesting that a man like Hitler was doing what god wanted? If so, I don't want any part of your blood-thirsty religion, you sick fuck.

By the way, lines like "His blood is on us and our children" are exactly what makes the bible so transparent to me. Who the hell would say something like that? And all in unison? Come on. By literary standards, it's terrible writing with a completely unbelievable dialogue and characters, and a boring, superficial plot. EVEN if these events are based in fact, and I highly doubt they are, it's obvious that the biblical accounts are NOT accurate. I've read tabloids with higher standards for reporting.

And it's spelled "Pilate".

old comment by Blaidd Drwg

Spelling and punctuation FAIL

Logical consequenses FAIL

Theological FAIL

What sort of "God" allows children to the nth generation be held accountable for the 'sins' of forefathers? (This is also the main stunbling block where 'original sin' is concerned)

The whole NT is predicated on the notion that one person can pay for the 'sins' of another, BUT in Christ's case this was VOLUNTARY sacrifice (and since He was ressurected in 3 days anyway, it wasn't much of a 'sacrifice' in the first place - His only sacrifice was the torture He went through before and during crucifixion which was brutal).

It is the height of arrogance and racism to assume that a group of people DESERVE everlasting punishment for crimes their ancestors committed.

old comment by Pule Thamex

Sure. Of course, there's no need for me to mention that God kills everybody anyway, sooner or later. Just as you know that God will be killing you one day, possibly tomorrow, possibly many years from now, you just don't know when. So even though God wants to kill us all, sometimes He becomes fed up with it, or the novelty wears off, or He just is having a lazy century or two. So what happened with the holocaust was that God was having a lazy decade and He knew that He'd have to kill all these Jews at some time or the other, so He just took advantage of the situation and had them all slaughtered in big clumps to save Him effort later on when He could be relaxing.

old comment by breakerslion

But it had to happen that way so gawd could sacrifice himself to himself to keep from breaking a law that he himself had made!

It was all just a big misunderstanding really. Someone told Pontius that Jesus said, "I am the pilot light of the world." Pontius thought that was a veiled innuendo, calling him a flamer. The rest as they say, is history. Or maybe it's all made-up bullshit.

The Holocaust was typical racist human shit, facilitated by some ancient asshole who was trying to downplay the Romans' part in the story and lay the blame on the Jews. Guess what you deserve for saying that people alive 1918 years later, give or take, "asked for it"? May you shit out your own rotten guts. DIAF is too good for you.

old comment by

That would totally discount the Christian belief that man has free will, which would hold that God would not intervene in the evil acts of mankind, period, including a holocaust. Your logic implies that god would have stopped the whole thimg had it not been for the Jews having "brought it on themselves".

You're also leaving out the fact that the Nazis murdered at least 5 million others in the camps for being Gypsies, Catholics, Jehova's witnesses, gays, etc. (but I suppose you'd think most of them brought it on themselves, too, eh?)

Then we'd have to take your "God let the holocaust happen because the Jews deserved it" logic a step further and apply it to genocides perpetrated on non-Jews in other parts of the world, like Cambodia, Armenia and Africa, where there's no historical connection to what happened to Jesus.

Hmmmm....you seem to be totally full of anti-Semitic shit, don't you?

old comment by Giveitaday

...and about the holocaust, God had to allow it to happen,

So is that the "loving god" of christianity I keep hearing about?

I am sure He did not want it,

So he's not much of a "god" is he.

but the jews asked for it themselves

I highly doubt anyone in the camps or killed in the holocaust "asked for it", no matter what kind excuses you make for your "god".

remember when Christ was crusified

No I don't, and neither do you.

pilot asked who they want released, and they said barabus

First off it's Pilate you biblically illiterate hick. Second, there is no reason that to suppose such an event ever took place, much less that it justifies the deaths of 6 million people nearly 2000 years later

and pilot

Pilate PILATE PILATE PILATE, Fucking PILATE!!!

i find no fault in this man whom u call Jesus, so he could not crusify Him, but they shouted, "His blood is on us and on our children" this is the very curse that they bought on themselves...

You can throw around any bible verses you want trying to justify the holocaust, it WILL NEVER be justafiable, no matter how badly you want it to. The holocaust wasn't perpetrated against those jews at the alleged crucifixtion, nor were any alleged jews at an alleged crucifixtion representative of all the jews in the world, then or now. What would be the purpose of free will if some "god" can or will have you killed because of something said or promised by someone who may or may not have been your ancestor.

old comment by moose

Get over the jews killed jeebus nonsense. That was the second best thing that happened to xianity. You needed a "sacrifice" to make the fairy tale complete. You know, from animal sacrifices which were done up to jeebus's time to atone for sins to transfer that practice to the "blood of jeebus" and all that jazz. His death brought you an important story line in your myth. Then add xianity's best friend Satan to the mix, and you can make a religion. Jeebus's death makes a mythical story line; and satan, hell, punishment, etc. to promote fear and an incentive convert to save ones soul. Without the jews and satan yall wouldnt have a religion. They are your friends. Give them some slack.

old comment by Gloria

a) You need to learn to spell: P-I-L-A-T-E, C-R-U-C-I-F-Y, B-A-R-A-B-B-A-S, etc.

b) There is some disagreement about the believability of that particular section; it's possible that it was added later as political spin control.

c) Using the crucifiction of Christ against the Jews is so wrong. Jesus willingly sacrificed himself for your sins. Think on that before you go adding judgementalism and attempts to justify mass murder to those sins.

d) Holocaust denial is disgusting and wrong. Arguing that it took place, but was perfectly allright, is goes beyond disgustin and wrong into a whole new realm of immoral. I'm trying not to hope that you end up trapped (alone) in a burning building some time in the near future, but it is difficult.

old comment by Xotan

It is frightening that such a simplistic, ignorant view can be used to justify one of the greatest crimes ever committed on this benighted planet.

0pkt0, the evidence is there for one to understand that when Christianity separated from Judaism, after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, Christians decided that it was necessary to write their Holy Books, the Gospels. These were henceforward Empire centred, and eager to absolve the Romans of any blame for Jesus's death, and to appear loyal to the Emperor. It is also painfully clear to anyone who thinks, that only the tiniest portion (count in hundreds) of the whole Jewish people could ever have met Jesus (let us assume he existed) in his lifetime. And even smaller number would have called for his death outside the Fortress Antonia in Jerusalem. The rest of the Jewish nation would never have heard of him. So what you say is analogous to the whole of America being blamed for the KKK lynchings of black people. Perhaps the rest of us should start persecuting Americans and killing them every chance we get??? You don't think so??? Neither do I. I have more sense that to think that a bunch of extremists represent all America and all its people. Likewise, those who called - according to the Rome oriented nature of the Gospels - for Jesus's death did not represent the whole of the Jewish people, and Christians therefore have the blood of Jesus's people on their hands for at least 1,700 years. For shame! You are an ignorant and venomous bigot.

Your ignorance, btw, is evidenced by your atrocious spelling of

Crucified
Barabbas
Pilate

I suggest that the curse is on your. With spelling like that you must be some kind of menial with a world horizon that doesn't extend beyond the tip of your nose.

old comment by Solomon

Most of what needs to be said has already been said here, especially with regards to the fact that the "plan" was for Jesus to die so that "everyone" could be saved so why would any Christian (who truly believes that theology) complain about it? That would call into question believing the whole "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son" thingy. And also the fact that Jesus said: "Forgive them".

But to add a little to the conversation that for some reason usually gets left out:

1) "Old Viking" already alluded to this but Pilate was actually the ONLY Roman governor to be REMOVED from office because he was TOO violent (yes, even by Roman standards). So likely he would not have even offered the people a choice of who to set free since nobody was ever set free. (I read this in "Who Killed Jesus?" by John Dominic Crossan).

2) The one part of that gospel story that ALWAYS gets left out, including from that hideous Mel Gibson movie, is the middle part just after Pilate says, "who do you want to set free". The Gospel itself says that, "the Jews/crowd shouted for Jesus to be set free, but then the Pharisees (incorrectly labeled as they were really the Saducees) worked their way amongst the crowd showing their displeasure and so the crowd then started shouting for Barabbas". So the crowd (i.e. majority of Jews that were present [still being a minority of Jews that existed at that time]) truly wanted Jesus to be freed and tried to free him. It was just the "temple elite" that used their "power" to force the issue. And this is assuming that the story is even correct and that this even happened. But for someone already claiming that the story did happen, but to leave out this piece, begs the question of motive for leaving it out (since it seems that the only reason to leave it out would be to be able to claim that it was the "Jews" fault for Jesus' death).

0pkt0 #fundie

77 comments

Confused?