Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
The Idiocy of the Blood Libel 2016-08-04 17:11:14 Post No. 1506298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The Idiocy of the Blood Libel 2016-08-04 17:11:14 Post No. 1506298
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: blood-libel-Simon-of-Trent.jpg (405KB, 924x786px) Image search:
[Google]
405KB, 924x786px
Why was Blood Libel even a thing? Did the "great" Church theologians never arrive to the conclusion that in order for the Christ to have "died for man's sins", he first needed to be killed? As such, why were Jews considered 'at fault', if they were the vehicle that allowed for Christ to supposedly save mankind? Christian theology makes it exceedingly clear that his execution was NECESSARY - they deify the instrument on which he was killed, but not the people who supposedly ordered it?
In any case, the blood libel legend is completely inaccurate, for it was the Roman authorities in Judea who killed Jesus, and not the Jews. There was no tradition of "releasing prisoners at Passover"; Barabbas is an invented character, born of a mistranslation, and when the Jewish crowd in the Biblical narrative cried out "Barabbas!", they were in actuality yelling for Jesus - even the oldest manuscript of Mark tells that Jesus was called 'Barabbas' by the people.
Rather, the blood libel and Christian hatred for Jews seems to have sprung up from the frustration arising from the conflict between Paul and James/Peter, and the refusal of the Jews at large to convert to Christianity, despite its claim at being the "continuation". The legend of the Jews choosing a criminal Barabbas over Jesus is simply a nice story that serves to cement this as having a scriptural basis while conveniently absolving the Romans (both their host and their main source of converts early on) of any fault.
>>
>>1506298
Wait, I'm sorry, but I thought "Blood libel" referred to the notion that Jews used Christian baby blood to make Matza. Still really stupid, and contradicted by the part in the bible where it tells Jews not to eat blood, but I thought the whole Passion sequence was something else.
>>
>monotheism
>horseshit
Pick two
>>
>>1506303
You are correct: I was being somewhat liberal and used the term blood libel to refer to instances of Christian anti-semitism, which manifested quite strongly on various occasions over accusations of "drinking blood" and "host desecration" as well as the more usual "God-killers"
>>
>
In any case, the blood libel legend is completely inaccurate, for it was the Roman authorities in Judea who killed Jesus, and not the Jews. There was no tradition of "releasing prisoners at Passover"; Barabbas is an invented character, born of a mistranslation, and when the Jewish crowd in the Biblical narrative cried out "Barabbas!", they were in actuality yelling for Jesus - even the oldest manuscript of Mark tells that Jesus was called 'Barabbas' by the people.
I've had it up to here with Christian doctrine, tradition, and history. Every time i start to feel I've got a grasp on it, whether coming out of Catholic school or independent biblical study of primary texts and the dizzying numbers of commentaries & heretical texts, some fresh bullshit is flung in my face by this board. Unfortunately, you write just convincingly enough to not be dismissed as some /x/tarded scribbler.
This is why I prefer researching wars. At the end of the day, there's a winner and a loser. Even if details are lost, there's some sense of finality and completeness when you close the book and exit the PDF.
Usually.
>>
>>1506298
A murder is still a murder, even if it has positive consequences for some people.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3