Evangelical vs Catholic (old school) view on Jews?

I always thought evangelicals just support Jews, and zionism because some time ago they realized they stand to gain financially from it.

As for catholics, there have been incidences going back to even before the Great Schism of them persecuting Jews. Even the Eastern Orthodoxy people have persecuted Jews before. Both sides, of course, have bad things to say about each other even to this day. So traditionally catholics, and other christian groups that have long contact with Jews have more negative impressions about Jews. Its part and parcel of their history.

All in all, the Jews are a distinct group. And every group is competing for the same resources. So at some point they all become adversarial.
 
As a Jew kid growing up in Albuquerque ( large Hispanic catholic population and large evangelical pop) I've had an interesting perspective.

The Evangilical kids really tried hard to convert me and when I showed no interest they seemed to dislike me.

Where as with the Catholic kids they would jokingly would call me a dirty Jew but never treated me different from anyone else.

As an adult my father in law is an evangelical and a raging anti Semite. The pastor of their church told my wife before we got married that she can't trust me because I haven't accepted Christ.

I work with a bunch of Brazilian and Mexican Catholics and they have never been judgmental towards me

Whatever that is worth
 
Great post.

Since you said that you find that every human is equally guilty, does that means that you find that humans that have not accepted christ to be living on sin due to said guilt?


I need to say again that these aren't my personal views. I'm just describing the religious tradition I grew up with. I don't have a good label for my own believes as they don't fit with any particular religion.

Per your question, I'm not sure you asked what you actually meant to ask. The Evangelical stance is that ALL humans are living in sin and all guilty of the death of Christ whether they accept him or not. They believe that accepting Christ provides the pathway to reconciliation with god in spite of that sin/guilt but it doesn't make it less so.

Did you mean to ask if Evangelicals think everyone who rejects Christ is damned?
 
The scripture goes has pharisees killing and denying Jesus, rabbinical judaism styles itself as the succesor of pharisees.

And while pagans who never heard of Jesus tend to get a pass, those that know about Jesus and deny him end up in a not-so-nice place.

You are right in the sense that catholics seem to be less constrained by scripture, the fact that catholics today dont see jews as apostates and unbelievers is i think evidence of that.
Just so you know if not. Christianity is a insane and nonsense religion.
All I know is my fiance is Lutheran and has been trying to get me to convert.

So I found out this Martin Lutheran character wrote a book called On the Jews and Their Lies.

Anyway, I'm Lutheran now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Written by a idiot who tries to smear the name of the people who gave him his stupid religion. If anything they are right and he is wrong!
 
Did you mean to ask if Evangelicals think everyone who rejects Christ is damned?

That is a good question, do evangelicals believe so?

I was thinking more about the original sin, since you said that we are all guilty for killing Jesus.

My understanding is that according to old school catholics jews arent more guilty due to being born, but more because they follow the Pharisees who killed Jesus.
 
As a Jew kid growing up in Albuquerque ( large Hispanic catholic population and large evangelical pop) I've had an interesting perspective.

The Evangilical kids really tried hard to convert me and when I showed no interest they seemed to dislike me.

Where as with the Catholic kids they would jokingly would call me a dirty Jew but never treated me different from anyone else.

As an adult my father in law is an evangelical and a raging anti Semite. The pastor of their church told my wife before we got married that she can't trust me because I haven't accepted Christ.

I work with a bunch of Brazilian and Mexican Catholics and they have never been judgmental towards me

Whatever that is worth

I think the whole jews killed Jesus and Protestants are apostates who deny Peter died with the 2nd vatican council, so catholics who grew up with the religion from the 60s and on wont have much of an opinion eitherway.

So only really old people would hold anti-semite views that stem from catholicism nowadays, most will be in their 80s.

That being said anti-semitism that stem from far-left views still exists.
 
You’re wife’s grandma is redpilled af

She is dead and was bed ridden for almost a decade so the jews got the last laugh i guess.

Unless old school catholics are right, then we are all going to hell.
 
That is a good question, do evangelicals believe so?

I was thinking more about the original sin, since you said that we are all guilty for killing Jesus.

My understanding is that according to old school catholics jews arent more guilty due to being born, but more because they follow the Pharisees who killed Jesus.


So to the first question, I always found that there was historically a firm public position that all - let's call them, disbelievers are damned. Then there's the sub-text that often exists between the lines but that was not frequently uttered which is that none of us are really in any sort of position to claim to know gods will where any individual is concerned. If this seems like double speak - your right! Evangelicals definitely talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of eternal damnation. Per what they actually believe - I think most have long had a nagging sense that the public stance on the issue is not the correct one and in 2018 they are increasingly finding carve-outs to the rule. When I was a kid it was a question of what happens to babies/children too young to have accepted Christ. They got a pass. Today that question is increasingly applied to Jews with more and more evangelicals openly embracing dual covenant theology and many more still tacitly embracing it with their actions and other utterances but are not yet being open about it. Many other religious traditions get no such positive consideration.

Per the rest, I maybe still don't understand the question and don't know if I've answered it.
 
Per the rest, I maybe still don't understand the question and don't know if I've answered it.

You answered all my questions, thank you.
 
Pope: Jewish people must never again be blamed for crucifixion
by Simon Caldwell | Wednesday, 2 Mar 2011
-13629.jpg

Benedict XVI is to make a major new contribution to Catholic-Jewish relations with a gripping theological assessment of who was culpable for the death of Jesus Christ.

The Pope takes a significant step forward in furthering the cause of inter-religious dialogue by explicitly exonerating the Jewish people from all blame for the Crucifixion and death of Jesus.

In his forthcoming book on Jesus, the Pope dedicates three pages to the famous passage in St Matthew’s Gospel in which “the Jews” demand the execution of Christ and shout to Pontius Pilate: “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”

He uses both scholarship and faith to explain that the mob does not represent the Jewish people, but sinful humanity in general.

Furthermore, he offers theological insights to say that the blood of Jesus is not used in the purposes of vengeance but is poured out to reconcile mankind to God.

It was not “poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all”, the Pope writes in Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, which will be published on Thursday by the Catholic Truth Society.

He adds that St Matthew’s reference to the blood of Our Lord does not represent “a curse, but rather redemption, salvation”.

The passage in St Matthew’s Gospel is particularly contentious because it has been used down the centuries to try to justify the anti-Semitism of some Christians, which, the Pope laments, had often resulted in “grave consequences”, an allusion to the persecution of European Jews.

The passage generates such strong feelings that Mel Gibson was forced to drop it from the subtitles of his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, although he did not cut the comments in their Aramaic form from the script.

In 1965 the Vatican rejected the idea of the collective culpability of Jewish people for the death of Christ in the Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate, a move which angered some Catholics.

By his remarks Pope Benedict is re-stating and consolidating the now accepted teaching of the Church in continuity with the attempts of his predecessors to build bridges with the Jewish people. Commentators who have seen extracts from the book released by the Vatican this week, however, say that the Pope, a respected scholar and theologian in his own right, is also offering a unique theological insight into the New Testament texts.

Sister Margaret Shepherd, secretary of the bishops’ conference committee for Catholic-Jewish relations, said: “Pope Benedict offers original insights into the death of Jesus and the question of responsibility for it. Pope Benedict takes further Nostra Aetate’s rejection of the deicide charge against the Jews by providing scriptural depth to our understanding of it. We have to see this in the context of the tragic history of such a charge, which has provided a rallying cry for anti-Semites over the centuries and whose effects still linger today.”

She added: “Pope Benedict has continued the genuine desire of his predecessors, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, for dialogue and encounter with the Jewish people.

“He has visited synagogues, significantly the Cologne synagogue early in his pontificate, as well as the Rome Synagogue. He has visited Auschwitz and Yad Vashem in Israel. He sent warm greetings to the president of the state of Israel on the occasion of the state’s 60th anniversary. [And] he has met with a number of chief rabbis,” including Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks.

Emeritus Archbishop Kevin McDonald of Southwark, the chairman of the bishops’ committee for Catholic-Jewish relations, said: “Pope Benedict’s new book offers a profound reflection on the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ.

“It goes to the heart of the Christian mystery and his writing is bold and revealing. It is very appropriate that it is being released as we approach the season of Lent since it provides a very fertile preparation for the celebration of Holy Week.”

The new book is the long-awaited sequel to Jesus of Nazareth: From Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, which became a best-seller when it was published in 2007.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...e-must-never-again-be-blamed-for-crucifixion/
 
I think most evangelicals have a fetish for Orthodox Jews, but aren't too fond of Reform and Conservative Jews. It's important to remember how diverse Judaism is.
 
So to the first question, I always found that there was historically a firm public position that all - let's call them, disbelievers are damned. Then there's the sub-text that often exists between the lines but that was not frequently uttered which is that none of us are really in any sort of position to claim to know gods will where any individual is concerned. If this seems like double speak - your right! Evangelicals definitely talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of eternal damnation. Per what they actually believe - I think most have long had a nagging sense that the public stance on the issue is not the correct one and in 2018 they are increasingly finding carve-outs to the rule. When I was a kid it was a question of what happens to babies/children too young to have accepted Christ. They got a pass. Today that question is increasingly applied to Jews with more and more evangelicals openly embracing dual covenant theology and many more still tacitly embracing it with their actions and other utterances but are not yet being open about it. Many other religious traditions get no such positive consideration.

Per the rest, I maybe still don't understand the question and don't know if I've answered it.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics for a Christian to think Jews can be given a pass for not becoming Christian because of the Mosaic covenant. Right in the book of Hebrews it says the old covenant is ready to vanish away. That of course was written 2000 years ago and its fulfillment was probably when the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
 
I always thought evangelicals just support Jews, and zionism because some time ago they realized they stand to gain financially from it.

As for catholics, there have been incidences going back to even before the Great Schism of them persecuting Jews. Even the Eastern Orthodoxy people have persecuted Jews before. Both sides, of course, have bad things to say about each other even to this day. So traditionally catholics, and other christian groups that have long contact with Jews have more negative impressions about Jews. Its part and parcel of their history.

All in all, the Jews are a distinct group. And every group is competing for the same resources. So at some point they all become adversarial.

I don't think all Jews can be lumped together as one homogenous group with the same goals and values. My uncle is a Reform Jew. When he was a kid his parents enrolled him in an Orthodox Jewish school. Most of his classmates were Orthodox. They picked on him so much he hates Orthodox Jews to this day. The difference in values between Reform and Orthodox Jews really is like night and day.
 
I don't think all Jews can be lumped together as one homogenous group with the same goals and values. My uncle is a Reform Jew. When he was a kid his parents enrolled him in an Orthodox Jewish school. Most of his classmates were Orthodox. They picked on him so much he hates Orthodox Jews to this day. The difference in values between Reform and Orthodox Jews really is like night and day.
Reform Jews are really nice people but they strike me more as liberal minded people who just want to identify with Judaism rather than seriously believe or follow it but I’m basing this off of like 3 people I’ve met lol
 
I don't think all Jews can be lumped together as one homogenous group with the same goals and values. My uncle is a Reform Jew. When he was a kid his parents enrolled him in an Orthodox Jewish school. Most of his classmates were Orthodox. They picked on him so much he hates Orthodox Jews to this day. The difference in values between Reform and Orthodox Jews really is like night and day.

Depending on the context, you can lump the individuals of any group together (depending on the context). And yes there will also be outliers. And of course in other context you cannot lump them together.

When talking about the general historical relations of Jews, host nation, neighbors, yada, yada, you can pretty much lump all jews together. You will always find general patterns regarding any groups. Now if you want to pick a specific time in history, or look at specific incidences, and then your context is such that you can make distinctions.
 
There’s little to no logic to which sects are pro and anti semetic. I’m halfway convinced that right wing Jewish groups lobby prominent evangelicals to evoke favorable feelings toward Jews/Israel.
 
I dont know if this is WR or Mayberry since its going to be about anecdotes, not really a serious discussion.

Anyway this comes from a conversation i was having with my wife about her late grandma (she was born in 1919) who was a devout catholic.

She once told me that she was watching the news with her back in the early 2000s (second intifada) and something about a suicide attack in Israel was mentioned.

Now a regular person would think "That's messed up" but my wife tells me her grandma said "These people are cursed to never know peace because of what they did to Jesus". I grew up as a catholic but as a second vatican council catholic so did my mom who goes to church all the time and i never heard anything about jews being cursed for killing Jesus or anything like that.

I know several protestant churches think highly of jews which i find weird since i would assume fundamentalists would be even more bitter about it.

Don't know about Catholics but I grew up Methodists and Jews were always spoken highly of.
 
As a Jew kid growing up in Albuquerque ( large Hispanic catholic population and large evangelical pop) I've had an interesting perspective.

The Evangilical kids really tried hard to convert me and when I showed no interest they seemed to dislike me.

Where as with the Catholic kids they would jokingly would call me a dirty Jew but never treated me different from anyone else.

As an adult my father in law is an evangelical and a raging anti Semite. The pastor of their church told my wife before we got married that she can't trust me because I haven't accepted Christ.

I work with a bunch of Brazilian and Mexican Catholics and they have never been judgmental towards me

Whatever that is worth


That is one punchable bastor!
 
Hisro
All I know is my fiance is Lutheran and has been trying to get me to convert.

So I found out this Martin Lutheran character wrote a book called On the Jews and Their Lies.

Anyway, I'm Lutheran now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
Lutheran Church has long tried to distance themselves from Luther's antisemitism. As it were, what makes one a lutheran is the Lutheran confession, which of course does not include anything from Luther's later life except the Smalcald Articles.

Folks nowadays think that Luther probably had mental issues when he was older. Essentially, he became a mean son of a bitch in his old age.
When he was younger, he would actually go into the synagogues and ask Rabbis about their interpretation of the text. Luther was, originally, an OT scholar.
 
Last edited:
Antisemitism has a long, long history in Europe. Some historians think that the growth of passion plays carved antisemitism into the Christian conscience, and essentially it never went away. You get Zionist folks in every Christian branch, but its rather normal to find antisemitism wrapped into the theologies of medieval and modern theologians and philosophers alike.

As Christianity started to map onto secular philosophies (liberalism) in the 1900s, antisemitism became that much possible. The academy, which of course trained clergy, became more open to cultural and government paradigms, including nationalism. So when Hitler came to power, the Church (especially protestants) did little to fight him. Their posture toward government and culture made it easy to sustain Nazi ideology and preach it from the pulpit. Obviously this is all grounded in the fact that the church (well before liberalism came along) already had fostered antisemitic ideas, but its openness to liberalism made it even worse.

Theology after the holocaust had a big wake up call. The most prominant theological minds in the west, the ones that have most influenced seminaries (as a whole) were all anti-nazi. Barth, Bonhoeffer, Balthasar, Moltmann, Niebuhr, Jenson, Bultmann, Ratzinger etc. Theology sort of took a turn after the holocaust, and I think had an impact on modern Christianity. This stuff becomes normative in seminaries and eventually trickles into the congregation. But of course, its in there with a bunch of other stuff so it doesnt always look pure (or good).

Being in the academy myself, I don't know anyone who is antisemitic. But there is certainly a divide over the state of Israel.
 
Back
Top