Does the Author of Matthew Tell Cristians to Blame Jews?
461726
Well, your quote says it very clearly: \nMathew blames the Jews!
707252
I found this ,it may answer some of your questions.(these or not my writings)\n\nA would-be historian and wannabe scholar by the name of Hugh Schonfield who did a book titled something like, “In Search of Historic Jesus.” It didn’t take long to realize that this man was out to prove that the divine Jesus, the Son of God, didn’t exist, and that he – Schonfield – had an anti-God, anti-Faith agenda behind his writings. He made the outrageous supposition that “the early Church fathers may have rewritten some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus” despite a total absence of any historical or documentary proof to support such a thesis.\n\nAnother wannabe historian, Gary R. Habermas, took it even a step father with his claim that “the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself.” These kinds of spurious claims are johnny-come-lately efforts of liberals and leftists who neither know, nor have a relationship with Jesus Christ, nor have they ever even made an effort to personally put Jesus’ claims to the test.\n\nThat said, let’s examine some of the historical evidence that does exist. \n\nMany years ago, my father made reference to a volume of historical documents he had looked at when he was studying in Bible College. He later obtained a copy and sent it to me. The book was titled, The Archko Volume, and represented the culmination of many years of effort of two eminent scholars, Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge in Genoa, Italy. Published in 1887, the work provided copies of writings and works taken from the Talmud and the Sanhedrin contemporary to the time of Christ, along with a copy of “Acta Pilati,” which was a report sent by Pontius Pilate – the Roman procurator or governor of Judaea – to Caesar detailing the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Some of the other documents included Gamaliel’s interview with Joseph and Mary concerning Jesus. Gamaliel, you may remember, was the Pharisee at whose feet Paul the apostle sat while he was yet a Pharisee, being instructed in the ways of the sect.\n\nThe Archko Volume also includes some documented reports of Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over the Jewish trial and judgment of Jesus prior to His being brought before Pilate, as well as his report to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nAccording to the testimony of the two researchers and archeologists who came up with the documents, the sources of these documents were ancient libraries in Constantinople and the Senatorial Docket in Rome.\n\nWhen you read these documents, it provides an interesting perspective and an otherwise not-considered view of others who either participated in or observed events and people who were involved in some way with Jesus Christ.\n\nOne of the things often overlooked by those who seek to authenticate the historical Jesus is the fact that what we now refer to as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written as personal testimonies of men who walked and talked with Jesus. These were eyewitness accounts. What makes them all the more intriguing is the fact that they were written at different times, in different places, and in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic), and yet they agree with each other. Each of the writers has a distinct personality and a perspective that differs from the others; and that personality comes through in the writing style. Nevertheless, there is synoptic agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. \n\nJohn writes from a totally different perspective as Jesus’ best friend, and the majority of what he writes details the final week of Jesus’ life and what He taught before He was crucified.\n\nBut, let’s step away from the accepted canon for a moment and look at the works of historians who were contemporary to the time.\n\nPhilo Judaeus of Alexandria, Egypt was a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle
746565
Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus, regardless of what Mel Gibson thinks.\n\nJews did not accept Jesus as the messiah because he did not fulfill the prophecies about the messiah. Christianity claims Jesus will finish the prophecies in his second coming, but according to Judaism the messiah will not die before all the prophecies are realized.
305065
I think that whoever is to be blamed, it makes no difference, because Jesus HAD to die somehow in order for everyone to be saved.  If Jesus didn't die, we would all be condemned to Hell.  It so happens that the Jews did it.  Perhaps they did not get the brunt of the blame.  But does it matter?\n\nTo some of the above posters, yes, there have been many injustices that have occurred at the hands of Christians as well as many other religious folks.  But that does not change the basic fact that Jesus died for our sins and that we are human.  We make mistakes.  But God does not make mistakes.  Everything happens for a reason.  And God knows infinitely more than you or I, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not.\n\nTo another poster--Heron By The Sea...your logic is good but some of your facts are wrong.  Yes, Rome did control the land where the Jews lived.  But they knew little about Jesus.  They were the most powerful civilization in the world...and do you really think they feared anyone?  Much less one man (Jesus) and his movement that polarized Jews of His day?  I don't think they really gave much of a d@mn about Jesus, OR the Jews, for that matter.  Pilate basically did not care anything about the trial until the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees said that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews."  Once he heard that, if Jesus was really a threat to Rome, do you think he would offer to release Jesus?  I don't think he would.  At that point, the Jews wanted Barabbas released.  So yes, it was the JEWS who wanted Jesus dead.\n\nSecondly, the Bible was NOT altered by Rome or Romans.  The Bible is a collection of books that were selected for the truth and sincerity and accuracy of the faith.  Yes through time there are many different translations today, but I would say the major translations have not been altered to the point where such central ideas have been warped and distorted beyond their original meaning and truth.  I see that you are a religious studies major, so I am not going to fully dismiss everything you say, but based on our Christian faith, God would not allow such things to be distorted (that's where the Holy Spirit comes in).
1171592
I remember this verse from theology classes.  I believe that there are some schools of thought that believe that Jesus ministry was directed more to the Jews.  And in fact he never ministered outside Judea.  He told his follows to ministry to gentiles but this wasn't his mission while on earth apparently.  Well maybe, maybe not.  It is an interesting passage thought isn't it.\n\nHe did spend a lot of time getting mad at the way the Temple was being run so you could assume that those were the lost sheep of the house of Israel I suppose.
235315
Actually if you read bible then you would see that it were Jew scholars who said that the blame will be on us and our children as they thought that it was a noble task they were going to perform. And still Jews think that what they did was right as they still do not believe that Jesus was the one promised in their scriptures.\n\nOn the other hand the teachings of Christians do not allow them to harm Jews or take revenge of the death of Jesus as he did not die on the cross. If he did die on the cross then why the ointment was put on his wounds? Surely he did not die on the cross. If they think that he died on cross then they should accept that he died a cursed death and hence do not blame Jews for that as Bible itself says that whoever dies on cross dies a cursed death. This also proves that he was not the Promised Messiah and whatever Jews did to him was right. But since Jesus survived from cross he did not die a cursed death.\n\nIt is Koran which tells us that he was neither crucified nor murdered. That means he died a normal death and hence was a noble prophet of God.
575223
Sure looks that way, don't it?  I mean, the Christians even include the entire Jewish Bible in their own, along with considering the divinity of Jesus in the light of old testament prophecies which he fulfilled.  He did indeed sound like something of a reformer, but the one who actually said it was no longer necessary to follow the old Jewish law was Saul of Tarsus aka Saint Paul.  That was after Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
506149
OK Ms. Heron-O-Rific! (hey!  YOU are the one who wanted a funny name just like Trasky-poo and Schnebby-kins so you you got one <winks and giggles>)\n\nI think Matthew misinterpretted what Jesus actually said.  No one will ever know for certain either if Jesus said it because there is really no evidence to support that he even existed.\n\nBTW... that woman is stupid for going back to him.
317481
Bless? the Nazis? Wow!. Because he's crazy. Or because he blamed the jews for jesus's dying, and liked the nazis idea.
1093166
I don't believe that Jesus was the founder of Christianity.  he was a devout Jew.  His disciples spread his teaching after he was crucified and a long time after his death, Christianity was formed as an institution.The books of the new testament don't really say that Jesus was like..."hey, i have a new religion for you." what he was saying was...according to my religious, Judaism, all of ya'll are messing up!, by the way, i am the Messiah...the one the Jews are waiting for...and here i am to challenge you to stick to Judaism and little more closely and maybe we should try some new things too..."  The gospels are incomplete...in fact there are other gospels that were left out like the gospel of Mary Magdalena and Thomas...each one kicked it with Jesus but they had a bit of a different view than the others...the others who were the ones who founded the religion....\ni respect Christianity and its teachings though i am not a follower.  A good look at historical jesus can be interesting.
191855
Matthew 28:5-7 reads, "The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.  Then go quickly and tell his disciples , He has RISEN FROM THE DEAD, and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you too".\n\nLuke 24:45-49, reads, Then He, (Jesus), openend their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.  He told them "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and RISE FROM THE DEAD on the third day, and repentence and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem". - Here, Jesus reinstates it was he who was crucified. \n\nIf anyone also wants to read more about Christ's crucifixion and death & his ressurection, read the book "The Case for Christ", chapter 11.  You'll understand that Jesus died on the cross after you read Lee Strobel interview with Alexander Metherell, M.D.,PH.D.  Metherell uses his expertise as a physician to describe in vivid detail just what Christ went through, and how He died on the cross.  He leaves anyone reading his account convinced that Jesus did die on the cross and wasn't just swooned or faint from what he went through.
35391
I am not sure if he was, but our current bible is missing several books.  Each of the 11 disciples wrote a book (all but Judas), but we only have 4.  Also, bear in mind that the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible have different books.  However, although I am sure he probably wrote "something" about Christ, I can not say for sure it was a "book," and that his book was rejected.
368003
Okay... let me start off by stating that "Jews" and "Hebrews" are one and the same. They are an ancient people, and "being Hebrew" is both a religion and an ethnic group. Those who have Jewish descent but are not "religious" are called "secular jews". A person can also be of the Jewish religion without being born a Hebrew.\n\nAs to whether or not they "believe" in Jesus, it is a complicated matter. Almost all people of the Jewish faith believe that there once was a rabbi named Jesus. The true issue is whether or not he was the Son of God.\n\nThe Old Testament does not make mention of Jesus by name, because by the very nature of the Bible, the Old Testament is mainly about the times before Jesus; it is about the history of the Jewish religion. There are many passages in the prophetic books of the old Testament that makes mention of a "Messiah" or "Savior" of the Jewish people. The coming of the Messiah was to mark the victory of the Jewish people, bring them back to the former glorious days of King Solomon. This Messiah was said to be a King of Kings, and would lead the Hebrew people out of the bondage of their enemies.\n\nEnter Jesus. His time was during the Roman Empire, when Rome had overtaken the Middle East, and has captured Jerusalem. The Hebrew people were under the rule of a pagan king, and there was a small but determined group called "Zealots", that prayed for the coming of the Messiah to lead them out of their captivity. When Jesus comes on the scene, He preforms miracles, and tries to teach the people how to live better lives. He tells people to love their neighbors and to treat others as they'd like to be treated. Jesus proved His divinty time and time again, yet still even His disciples were unable to fully believe.\nThe Jewish leaders of the time could accept that a poor rabbi from a nondescript part of their nation was the foretold Messiah. Why, he was not a great king... how could He ever lead them to victory over the Romans? And so, they begin to plot to have Him killed... He is disrupting their people... causing a revolt, some say. It is not He that is bringing the glory and attention to Himself, it is the people, witnessing to others about the miracles He had done for them. Blind men could see, dead were raised to live again, and food was made from near nothingness. It was all too much. He had to go.\n\nFor those who do not understand the Jewish religion, it is difficult to fully appreciate the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. It might all seem like a gory, twisted sotry. But in the Hebrew faith, there was no atonement for sin except through the spilling of blood. If you stole something, you must sacrifice something for forgiveness. Typically, it was the purest, whitest lamb or animal one possessed. By this shedding of blood, one was forgiven their transgression. However, the sins of the people had become too great for lambs to pardon, and a larger sacrifice was needed. That sacrifical lamb, that pure innocent life, was the Son of God, Jesus Christ.\n\nTo this day, most Hebrew people are still waiting for the coming of their Messiah. It is in this point that Christianity branches off from Judism. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Messiah. Jewish people do not accept His divinity. That is the critical difference.
611788
This is only a theory, \nbut when Constantine and the Council of Nicaea canonised the Bible, they weren't too kind to the Jews. They didn't want anything to do with them as they felt Jews were beneath them. So they made it known, separated Easter from Passover, introduced the death penalty for ministering Judaism, same for those listening, coined the term 'Christ Killers' and basically treated them like dirt, and the same went for their Prophet and Book. \nAfter changing words in the Bible, adding to it (words like 'begotten' meaning to sire or father), calling Jesus a son of God - which was more powerful than having a Prophet who was only spoken to by God, they then started to regain their power back away from the people.... and all because some guy called Jesus had stirred up plenty of trouble for Rome by giving out free medicals and telling them to believe in One God that created all of us.\nThey set out to burn any Bible that didn't match their own and kill anyone who wouldn't accept the new doctrine - crusades. \nThe God of Constantine in the NT would certainly be more merciful than the God of the Moses in the OT.... it says so, as written by powerful political men of the 4th Century.\n:)
842796
Well, there was David Friedrich Strauss, but as far as I can find he only claimed that Jesus was not divine. I'll keep searching and see if there was another who went further.
690612
Matthew tells us that Jesus is the promised son of David the eternal king. as for christian living, A good study of Matthew 5 - 7 will help, \n\nA quote from the article\n\nIn Matthew 5, Jesus explains that true righteousness is internal, a matter of the heart, not just of behavior. In chapter 6, he explains that our religious activities must be sincere, not performances designed to make us look good. In those chapters, Jesus addresses two problems that occur when people focus on external behavior as the main definition of righteousness: external behavior is not all that God wants, and people are tempted to pretend instead of being changed in the heart.\n\nIn chapter 7, Jesus addresses a third problem of a focus on behavior: People who equate righteousness with behavior tend to judge or criticize others.\n\n\nSermon on the Mount\na study of Matthew 5\nhttp://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/matt5.htm\n\nSermon on the Mount\nA Study of Matthew 6\nhttp://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/matt6.htm\n\nSermon on the Mount: a study of Matthew 7\nhttp://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/matt7.htm\n\nAll of the bible is good for learning.\nChristians now are under grace alone faith alone Jesus Alone\nthis does not mean christians can sin a reading of Romans 6:1-23 will show this\n\nHope this helps
632754
It shows that ALL gospels, including the ones found in the Christian's New Testament, were written as a result of their own theology, rather than historical events that they witnessed. Each author had an agenda, and so he wrote stories about Jesus that 'proved' his agenda. The author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Jesus gave permission to Judas to betray him, thus absolving Judas of any wrong, so he wrote a story to 'prove' it. The others gospels did the same thing.