Catholic School Students Yell at Jewish Students...

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@aldiboronti

You’re way out on a limb denying that the New Testament has passages which clearly are aimed at the Jews and their supposed responsibility for the death of Jesus.

I’m claiming no such thing. I’m pointing out that the things you quoted do not say what you think they do.

@aldiboronti

I really cannot believe that you are ignorant of the Church’s history on this issue. If you are then I have neither the time nor the inclination to enlighten you. Just research the damn stuff yourself.

You have no reason to believe that I’m ignorant. In fact, you have every reason to believe exactly the opposite, since I’m the one correcting you.

@aldiboronti

As for bashing the Roman Catholic church you’re misreading me. It’s the early Christian writers I’m bashing.

The question is, why are you doing that in a thread that’s about young kids yelling dumb shit because it was once a prevailing (bigoted) belief?

@aldiboronti

Here’s Augustine, still revered by the RCs. Go on, tell me I’m twisting his words.

Of course you’re twisting his words. That parenthetical is not his- you inserted that parenthetical to add your interpretation to what Augustine wrote. Nowhere in Chapter 14 does Augustine identify “the Jews” in the manner that you pretend he did. Furthermore, you cherry-picked a sentence that is made clear by context. Augustine asks God that the “enemies of Scripture” be “slain unto themselves that they may live unto you.”

@aldiboronti

I had no wish to derail the thread further by replying, but your attempt to whitewash clearly antisemitic passages in scripture just couldn’t go unanswered.

I’m not whitewashing anything, and the passages aren’t anti-semitic.

If you’re going to answer, do so from a place of knowledge.
I’m not taking any position here- I offer no opinion on what the Church fathers may or may not have thought. I’m pointing out only that nothing that you are advancing as true is actually true. Moreover, you’re doing it in such a manner as to give the distinct impression that the quotes you’re snipping say something entirely different from what they actually say.

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Remember when Pontius Pilate washes his hands? Do you remember why he did that?

Yes.

But if you were to learn that Ted Bundy washed his hands before each killing, would you believe he was less blameworthy thereby?

[Typo_Negative]

They yelled some stupid shit, they we admonished by their school and forced to apologize.

Seems well-reasoned and appropriate to me.

[Bricker]

@aldiboronti

Just research the damn stuff yourself. As for bashing the Roman Catholic church you’re misreading me. It’s the early Christian writers I’m bashing.

Here’s Augustine, still revered by the RCs. Go on, tell me I’m twisting his words.

I had no wish to derail the thread further by replying, but your attempt to whitewash clearly antisemitic passages in scripture just couldn’t go unanswered.

Here is the actual text of the relevant section of St. Augustine’s Confessions, from Project Gutenberg: (the bolded emphasis is mine)

This then is what I conceive, O my God, when I hear Thy Scripture saying, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth: and the Earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep, and not mentioning what day Thou createdst them; this is what I conceive, that because of the Heaven of heavens,—that intellectual Heaven, whose Intelligences know all at once, not in part, not darkly, not through a glass, but as a whole, in manifestation, face to face; not, this thing now, and that thing anon; but (as I said) know all at once, without any succession of times;—and because of the earth invisible and without form, without any succession of times, which succession presents “this thing now, that thing anon”; because where is no form, there is no distinction of things:—it is, then, on account of these two, a primitive formed, and a primitive formless; the one, heaven but the Heaven of heaven, the other earth but the earth invisible and without form; because of these two do I conceive, did Thy Scripture say without mention of days, In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth. For forthwith it subjoined what earth it spake of; and also, in that the Firmament is recorded to be created the second day, and called Heaven, it conveys to us of which Heaven He before spake, without mention of days.
Wondrous depth of Thy words! whose surface, behold! is before us, inviting to little ones; yet are they a wondrous depth. O my God, a wondrous depth! It is awful to look therein; an awfulness of honour, and a trembling of love. The enemies thereof I hate vehemently; oh that Thou wouldest slay them with Thy two-edged sword, that they might no longer be enemies unto it: for so do I love to have them slain unto themselves, that they may live unto Thee. But behold others not faultfinders, but extollers of the book of Genesis; “The Spirit of God,” say they, “Who by His servant Moses wrote these things, would not have those words thus understood; He would not have it understood, as thou sayest, but otherwise, as we say.” Unto Whom Thyself, O Thou God all, being judge, do I thus answer.

Note the lack of the parenthetical “The Jews” which appeared in your version. It’s unclear to me if you added that or took it from some existing online resource, but it’s not in the original.

Also note that St. Augustine’s writings are not Scripture.

Finally please note that the “enemies of Scripture,” in this passage are not the Jews, since Jews manifestly were NOT fault finders with respect to the Book of Genesis.

[j666]

@John_Mace

Judas did it for money, not because he thought it was right. At lest, that is standard Catholic teaching. Thirty pcs of silver.

No, really, is that where the phrase comes from? Who knew!

Okay, snark over. Considering the outrage over the expensive oil for cleaning Christ’s feet, and adding in a natural skepticism about Judas’s imputed motives, given that history is written by the winners, or at least the survivors, leaves me unconvinced that Judas was motivated by money; if he had been, why would he have killed himself? By the time I left Catholic school, I was convinced Judas was the only one with a wit of sense, especially financial sense. I decided he either tried to salvage what he could of a terribly dangerous situation, or was tempted just that bit too far.

And even if Judas did sell out Christ for the money and only the money, he wasn’t an empty blowhard like Simon Peter.

[j666]

@Son_of_a_Rich

I thought for sure the guys in red were going to do a Rockettes.

Final aside on the All Blacks, the 12 videos suggested next by YouTube are 10 haka, one Warren Zevon concert, and Let the Circle be Unbroken.

I wish I were making an argument, so I could say, “I rest my case”, and walk away.

[Guinastasia]

@j666

No, really, is that where the phrase comes from? Who knew!

Okay, snark over. Considering the outrage over the expensive oil for cleaning Christ’s feet, and adding in a natural skepticism about Judas’s imputed motives, given that history is written by the winners, or at least the survivors, leaves me unconvinced that Judas was motivated by money; if he had been, why would he have killed himself?

Guilt? He realized what a shitty thing he did, selling out a good friend?

Peter may have been a hothead, but he was there when it really counted. Judas was a douchebag.

[j666]

@Guinastasia

Guilt? He realized what a shitty thing he did, selling out a good friend?

Peter may have been a hothead, but he was there when it really counted. Judas was a douchebag.

So it didn’t count before the cock crow? Only after he was dragged away and nothing could be done about it. Right.

Though I’m sure all the nuns would agree with you.

[JoseB]

@j666

No, really, is that where the phrase comes from? Who knew!

Okay, snark over. Considering the outrage over the expensive oil for cleaning Christ’s feet, and adding in a natural skepticism about Judas’s imputed motives, given that history is written by the winners, or at least the survivors, leaves me unconvinced that Judas was motivated by money; if he had been, why would he have killed himself?

FWIW, in the Bible there are two contradictory accounts as to how Judas met his end.

In the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 27:1 to 27:10) it says:

• Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

3 **When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.**

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”*

(This account ties with what Guinastasia said earlier in the thread):

@Guinastasia

Guilt? He realized what a shitty thing he did, selling out a good friend?

However, the Acts of the Apostles gives a different account (Acts 1:15 to 1:20):

*15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’*

In Acts there is no mention of remorse, or anything (thus tying with j666’s comments).

I would say that the whole thing is murky, at best. Very murky.

In Matthew, Judas is wracked by remorse, gives back the 30 pieces of silver to the Sanhedrin, and the latter decides to use the money to buy a piece of land for use as a graveyard, as that was “blood money”, and that that’s why that particular place was called the “Field of Blood”.

In Acts, Judas is not wracked by remorse, uses the money himself to buy land, and dies there in a gruesome accident, which is what makes people call that place “Field of Blood”.

I know that several authorities have tried to make the two accounts mesh with each other (for instance by saying that they talk about two different things: Matthew talks about the hanging, and Acts talks about the rope breaking, Judas’ body falling and breaking on impact). However, this doesn’t do anything about Matthew saying Judas returned the money to the Sanhedrin, which later used it to buy a Potter’s Field, and the Acts saying that Judas himself bought the land and died there.

[Bricker]

Judas bought the field, in the sense that it was his money that bought the field.

If I give you $30 and send you to McDonald’s on gaming night, and your return with the food, you might say, “Hey, guys, look what I bought us!”

And I might say, “Um… you mean, look what I bought us!”

I paid for it. My money. You took the money and purchased the food.

The owner of the silver did not change because Judas threw it on the floor of the temple. The chief priests took Judas’ money and bought a field.

Judas paid for it. His money. They took the money and bought the field.

[Colibri]

@Bricker

Judas bought the field, in the sense that it was his money that bought the field.

If I give you $30 and send you to McDonald’s on gaming night, and your return with the food, you might say, “Hey, guys, look what I bought us!”

And I might say, “Um… you mean, look what I bought us!”

I paid for it. My money. You took the money and purchased the food.

The owner of the silver did not change because Judas threw it on the floor of the temple. The chief priests took Judas’ money and bought a field.

Judas paid for it. His money. They took the money and bought the field.

Bricker, do you really believe the Bible (or even just the New Testament) presents a reliable historical account of events? If you use these kinds of contortions to reconcile every contradiction or discrepancy in scripture you’ll be spinning like a top.

The scriptures are accounts that for the most part weren’t written down for decades after the events they purport to describe. There is no reason to expect them to be consistent.

[Bricker]

@Colibri

Bricker, do you really believe the Bible (or even just the New Testament) presents a reliable historical account of events? If you use these kinds of contortions to reconcile every contradiction or discrepancy in scripture you’ll be spinning like a top.

The scriptures are accounts that for the most part weren’t written down for decades after the events they purport to describe. There is no reason to expect them to be consistent.

I agree.

However, this particular example is not one that shows inconsistency, or at the very least it is inconsistency that arises from two different people relating the same basic story.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Bricker

The owner of the silver did not change because Judas threw it on the floor of the temple. The chief priests took Judas’ money and bought a field.

Judas paid for it. His money. They took the money and bought the field.

:dubious:

If Judas no longer wants it and leaves it for the Sanhedrin, why would it remain his?

[Bricker]

@Inner_Stickler

:dubious:

If Judas no longer wants it and leaves it for the Sanhedrin, why would it remain his?

They didn’t want the money either: “The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.”

[Colibri]

@Bricker

However, this particular example is not one that shows inconsistency, or at the very least it is inconsistency that arises from two different people relating the same basic story.

I disagree. It shows some quite significant inconsistencies that require reading the passages contrary to their most obvious meaning to reconcile. I think it’s impossible to tell from the two passages whether Judas or the Sanhedrin purchased the field, or whether Judas hung himself, committed suicide by jumping off a cliff, or had an accident.

[Inner_Stickler]

That’s all true enough but I don’t see how it then follows that the money is still Judas’s.

[Boyo_Jim]

@fisha

… My kids go to Catholic schools, and it’s not uncommon for opposing fans to dress as priests. Is that funny, tasteless, or insulting/disrespectful… crossing the line?

I think they’re dressing as Neo – ultra cool!