With your getting married? 
As far as catholic doctrine is concerned (that I know), catholics don’t proselytize to jews. Simple.
Well, it did probably require divine intervention.
Technically, he was crucified by the Romans. I’m not wrong about that, am I?
the_diego said:
Isn’t it more like:
“The defining issue is that (because) they rejected Christ (the Romans) crucified him.”?
Well, Jewish People - just because Jesus is a relative doesn’t mean you get to sell me inferior corned beef at the deli, or run out of the “nice whitefish”.
Your connections only take you so far. :mad:
Always leave your hat on when you shop at the deli or the appetizing store. You get the best cuts that way.
Helps if you have a beard, too.
– Uke Ike, the Goy with the hat and beard
OK, first, there is the basic respect that everyone deserves until they disqualify themselves. But as to the Jewish people in particular, as a Christian, I recognize that God chose them to receive and preserve the Sacred Scriptures leading up to the Messiah, to be the ethnicity to mother The Incarnation of God’s Word~Son and to call His disciples from, and that, even in their unbelief in Jesus as Messiah, that the continued survival & thriving of the Jewish people in spite of everything, including the tragic heresy of Christian anti-semitism, is a sign of God’s continued acting in History & His faithfulness to His original Covenant people.
Why not? Can you answer that?
Right. But none of that is because Jesus is Jewish. If anything, it’s the other way around. Because of the covenant, Jesus had to be Jewish.
And while that is also my theology, it never resulted in me actually treating any Jewish people differently.
I never read Jesus’ rebukes of specific Pharisees as being “not OK” with Pharisees as a whole. He also rebuked some (but not all) rich people, some (but not all) harlots, and dang near all of his disciples at one time or another. YMMV, I’m certainly no theologian.
The story beginning with Acts 10:10is the basis for Christians ignoring Old testament food rules. The story is not primarily about food, it’s about all humans being equal in God’s eyes, but food was used to make the point. It’s not a great leap to interpret the vision as applying to both.
It’s complicated :). Jewish law did not use the death penalty much, if at all. The Romans, OTOH, were very, very good at it and for non-citizens applied it often. The New Testament narrative, in a nutshell, is that Jesus committed blasphemy by claiming to be God. He was also gathering growing crowds and undermining the religious leaders’ authority. A handful of Jewish leaders persuaded the Roman government to crucify him and Pontius Pilate eventually gave the order. There is no dispute that it was solely Roman soldiers who carried out the punishment
So, were the Romans or the Jews to blame? The answer is “neither”, any more than all Americans are to blame for the assassinations of MLK, JFK, or Lincoln. It just doesn’t work that way. In fact, one would think that Christians would celebrate the people involved for being conduits, albeit unwittingly, for the Plan to be fulfilled.
To the OP - Anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, etc., is wrong regardless of the wrapper one presents it in.
Jews are God’s blessed and chosen people according to scripture. They are stubborn (stiff necked people) according to God, make mistakes all the time and God has to rescue them over and over and they don’t learn, but God still loves them and called them his own.
Whatchya gonna do 
My sense is that over the years, God’s playing favorites with the Jews has caused them considerable trouble. IMO, the fact that God singled out and ‘chose’ the Jews has often led to animosity towards them by some gentiles. I recall that this was a particular point used by Nazi jew-baiters, even Hitler himself. In Mein Kampf he would inveigh against “The Chosen People”. Indeed, Nazi writings and propaganda material often contain mocking references to the “Chosen People”.
As an old Jewish milkman once said, “Dear God, I know we’re Your Chosen People. So, would it hurt if just once, You chose someone else?”
Doctor Jackson:
I’m not at all a New Testament scholar, so I could be mistaken in my impression; it’s also possible that this attitude that I thought was attributed to Jesus was actually Paul’s, but I’d gotten the impression that the term “Pharisee” came, to Christians, to mean people who are meticulous about law but don’t give a damn about people, and that is at odds with his whole “turn other cheek” or “he who is without sin throw first stone” sort of attitude which is supposed to exemplify Christian teachings.
There is in fact an interesting relationship between the Vulcans of Star Trek and Jews - Nimoy picked out the “live long and prosper” salute Vulcans use, from the Kohanim blessing!
I think it was mostly from the sayings attributed to Jesus. Paul was himself a Pharisee. Paul’s big problems were with the Judaizers, who wanted Christian converts to abide by the Jewish law, especially circumcision.
This part is true. Jesus used “the Pharisees” as examples of religious hypocrisy.
Jesus was also including the religious establishment of His day in his condemnation.
But you are correct that “Pharisee” came to mean “religious hypocrite” only. Which is sort of natural - a lot of what the Pharisees were about was scrupulous adherence to the Jewish law, and a focus on that as well as the rise of the idea that rabbinic interpretation of the OT law was also binding on Jews. Jesus was reacting pretty strongly against a sort of nitpicking about ritual at the cost of acting in mercy and justice.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a passage in Jon Ronson’s Them about how (notorious) Northern Irish anti-Catholic Protestant minister Iain Paisley accepts the author into his inner circle after finding out he’s Jewish (but then makes subtle anti-Semitic remarks to him).
Good points, but context makes a difference. There are several instances in Matt 23 where Jesus says “Woe to the religious scholars and Pharisees”, but the context is in the first few verses:
The ‘be careful’ part makes it clear he is later references are only addressing those scholars and Pharisees who were hypocrites - not all of them as a group. For example, later in the chapter He says " Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Murderer of prophets…". That doesn’t mean that he was rebuking everyone in Jerusalem. It’s a form of hyperbole that was common in speech and writing of the time. Out of context, though, it does kind of seem that He is preaching against whole groups. Perhaps that is where the perception mentioned by cmkeller arose.