spot on. it bugs me when ppl who are opposed to zionism make it an entirely “white/ashkenazi” problem bc like. y’all. sephardim and mizrahim in israel tend to be extremely zionist. they also tend to hold a lot of anti arab bias bc of their experiences being violently expelled from arab countries. is it right to have those biases? no. but it’s understandable given what they went through, the majority of them within their or their parents’ lifetimes. itamar ben-gvir is not a “white eastern european ashkenazi colonizer” he’s a brown jew whose parents are iraqi kurdish, and he’s arguably one of the most extremist right-wing leaders in israel right now. he’s a straight up kahanist. he makes netanyahu look like a centrist. so all the ppl who are like “just ship all the white jews back to poland and balance will be restored!!” are just revealing how little they actually know about israel and the real issues there, let alone how to fix them. if you want arab-jewish relations in the area to improve, you have to acknowledge the deep seated trauma and resentment that’s been festering in the sephardi/maghrebi/mizrahi jews of israel whose experiences are repeatedly erased, ignored, denied, and still ongoing, and you have to stop thinking of this shit through the leftist american lens of “white people inherently bad and racist, brown people inherently good and righteous.” most of the time trauma does not make you better, it just fucks you up.

#i/p discourse#yeah this#like if you’re drawing a line in the sand and it’s based on skin color I am… suspicious#but if that line in the sand also puts fucking ben gvir on the ‘right side’ then I’m not just suspicious I am laughing in your face#you cannot claim to be pro-Palestinian if you casually make comments that erase the existence of millions of Palestinians#while simultaneously uplifting literal kahanists just because they have the right phenotype and you don’t know enough to understand#that the things that are coming out of their mouths are not just anti-Arab but literally genocidal#I keep thinking about that person who literally thought his name was ‘Benjamin Gvir’#like girl I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re qualified to speak on this issue lol

@penrosesun, your tags pass peer review.

tbh i don’t really recommend that video. it’s not from a jewish perspective, so it’s missing a lot and there are definitely some biases of hers that really show through. if you’re interested in a historical jewish perspective, dr. henry abramson has a ton of videos about jewish history, including the early zionist movements to modern jewish history. obviously he is not without bias, which he is very transparent about, but his perspective is very much the standard jewish historical perspective. and if you want the perspective of an israeli mizrahi jew, i recommend “a mizrahi manifesto” by hen mazzig. also not without bias, and it might be a tough read, but i think it’s an important perspective to understand, whether you agree with him or not. basically, overall, if you’re wanting to learn about zionism (not kahanism, to be clear) your best bet is to go to jewish sources first — and yes, sources you might disagree with.

There's a lot of accidental anti-semitism in the world , but sometimes I come across the deliberate and malicious anti-semitism im DND and I'm just reminded that no matter how much I love this game it does not love me back and the original creators never wanted me to play it.

Today's example is: Phylactery

In d&d:

In real life

That's right. they named the evil artifact that the evil undead spellcaster hides their soul in after a Jewish ceremonial object.

Actually I want to add something because the genius of this particular kind of anti-semitism is that most gentiles won't know what a Phylactery really is, The only people who will notice are the Jewish players. Making them instantly feel isolated, alone, and unsafe in their d&d group.

when you come across that you should at the table paralyzed wondering

Do my fellow players know this is anti-Semitic?

If they don't know and I bring it up will they be mad at me for ruining the fun?

If they do know and I bring it up will revealing myself as Jewish be dangerous?

It's a tactic to deliberately push Jewish people out of the game. and nobody jump up to tell me it was an accident because it fucking wasn't. Before d&d Phylactery only had one definitionand I find it impossible that they would know the word without knowing the meaning. Or at least knowing it was Jewish.

Holy shit can this post fucking disappear from my dash please!

Attention goyim: Jews don't use the word phylactery. That's stupid and greek. They're called Teffilin.

I don't know why articles everywhere say that this is what The Jews™ call their Weird Little Prayer Boxes, but we don't say that, and it's not even a super common aspect of prayer (at least where i'm from) and i wish y'all wouldn't pretend to be offended at this. No jew calls Teffilin phylactery, when i first saw this post i even tried finding out if anyone i knew said phylactery, and they all looked at me like i was a dumbass. We don't need your fake outrage, and I SEE YOU FUCKIN GOYS IN THE NOTES PRETENDING TO BE JEWISH AND FEEL ALIENATED! GROSS! This is a non issue, dispel it from your mind and stop spreading this horseshit!

I was going to let this slide as someone making an honest mistake, and that you can never be too cautious around antisemitism, but then I find out that OP lied about being Jewish for this post and frankly that’s just pathetic to the point of hilarity.

I’d never heard that use of it, and was wondering why a Greek-to-Latin word was being used for an intimately Jewish object.

However! “Before d&d Phylactery only had one definition”? Actually, no. :)

Medieval historian here! I actually already knew this word in another context: it can be used for any object containing a holy relic, but more commonly it’s used in reference to medieval art, to mean the little ‘speech bubble’ (shaped like a scroll coming out of the mouth) used to show someone talking.

That said!

Neither of these is common usages (even in medieval studies, ‘reliquary’ and ‘speech scroll’ are more common terms), and by the look of the attestations in the Oxford English Dictionary, the most usual usage of ‘philactery’ is as a Latinate term for ‘tefillin’. (The dictionary refers you to ‘tefillin’ as the correct term, btw.)

I can’t speak for the good faith of OP, let alone of the creators of D&D, and still less to how Jewish people might feel about the use of this term. But I’d hazard a guess that choosing it for that purpose is not a neutral act.

being raised catholic only to abandon the church and become a progressive agnostic is very funny because i’m getting a wave of “man FUCK pontius pilate” at 4 AM again

growing up heard a whole lot of “pontius pilate didn’t REALLY want to kill jesus” and “pontius pilate was peer pressured into killing jesus:(“ but also at the same time from the same mouths “judas is in hell forever” and “judas was evil”……………..i am SICK of it

actually feeling dizzy as i type this…..pilate washing his hands was framed as repentant and noble…..judas killing himself was framed as an admittance to guilt…………….i’m gonna break into a catholic church and eat a tub of unconcentrated communion wafers in one mighty gulp

If Judas didn’t turn his back on Jesus then how was Jesus to fulfill the role the Church claims he had to? Why does the incredibly wealthy and powerful governor get a pass but the person who gave Jesus to the governor and felt horrid about it the whole time after get condemned? 

#the answer is antisemitism from what ive read - the gospels in which the Romans are basically absolved were written when Christianity wanted #to show the Romans that the Christians were actually not blaming the Romans for their state-sponsered execution of Jesus #so like many things in history the idea of Pilate as anything close to noble was an attempt to cozy up to the powerful #hence Pilate is lionized or ennobled as an unwilling figure bowing to pressure #and the Jewish people are demonized - this is where the blood curse from Matthew originates

And a lot of the medieval traditions of depicting Judas (can’t speak to traditions before and after because I’m just a medievalist) draw on the same kinds of artistic tropes as their depictions of Jews - and, incidentally, of demons / anthropomorphised vices like Anger and Despair. Red hair and the hooked nose are the most obvious but there’s also things like angle and aspect of arms and legs, particular ways of distorting the face and drawing hte hair - and of course the act of suicide is linked with Ira/Wraþþe (Anger is portrayed as finally self-destructive) and with Wanhope (despair, which is a graver sin than we’d expect nowadays because it means not having faith that God will/can make things better). And since the Venn diagram of representations of Jews, demons, and ‘people tormenting saints in martyr tales’ is almost but not quite a circle... yep. Judas gets to be the only apostle who’s portrayed as a(n evil treacherous furious) Jew.

We are not “Christians”, we are Messianic Jews. I was born to Jewish parents with a long line of Jewish roots. We practice Jewish holidays, recite Jewish prayers and keep Jewish traditions. We are here, we are valid and we aren’t going anywhere. 

Can’t keep Jewish holidays and traditions if you believe in Jesus. They are not compatible. He failed in every way to be the Jewish Moshiach.

I really fucking hate Christian missionaries that think that little sins like “bearing false witness” are acceptable when engaging in pious fraud for Jesus. And that’s all Messianic jews are. Lying frauds attempting to engage in cultural genocide, since actual genocide didn’t work.

OP, you’re not valid. 

every jew @ “jews” for jesus

big mood but also Jews for Judaism is a reactionary group 

Christian literally means a follower of Jesus. OP if you ain’t a Christian then why are you following Jesus?

Yeah go ahead and invalidate an entire sect of Judiasm. We don’t matter right. My grandmothers birth family were Messianic Jews and were of Israeli descent, but you know whatever just keep being absolute dickholes I guess. We’re lying frauds? what a joke y'all are.

List of Jewish organizations/groups/people who don’t recognize messianics as a valid sect of Judaism:

Time to bust out one of my favourite images:

I am so deeply sorry for my woeful ignorance here but does someone have the emotional energy to explain what the dispute is here and what has everyones backs up so badly about Messianics? 

I’d be greatful if someone who feels able could private message me or explain to me here. I have little understanding of Judaism and this is something I am trying to learn about but I struggle to read books or focus on documentaries (Plus I seldom trust documentaries) due to my learning difficulties and also I end up sobbing uncontrollably whenever I read of the atrocities both past and ongoing, I do not turn a blind eye however and would be exceptionally greatful if someone who perhaps would enjoy educating me on the finer points of Judaism, to learn I need to be able to ask questions. I’m not expecting a full history lesson unless you are so inclined as one of the reasons I want to learn more about Judaism is so that I can more effectively shut down racist fuckwads. 

I will do some research independently but would appreciate some source suggestions as I will end up spending all my mental energy on finding a source that is more fact based and less thinly veiled racism and misinformation.

Thank you for reading and just the time you spent reading is a kind use of your mental energy and I’m greatful.

The condensed version is very simple:

1.) Messianics are part of a movement formed by evangelical Christians specifically and intentionally to convert more Jewish people to Christianity in order to bring about Christian end times. Messianics have built up a culture of lying to and misleading Jewish people in order to further their goal of cultural genocide - erasing everything about Judaism which does not further THEIR goals.

2.) the actual Jewish religion fundamentally does not support believe in Jesus. He did not fulfill the Jewish requirements for being Moshiach, and Jewish law forbids worshipping anyone but G-d. And a human incarnation cannot be G-d, simply because that would make them divisible. There’s a million other reasons but the most important is that this is Avodah Zara or idol worship, and that is extremely forbidden to Jewish people. (We already mentioned the group Jews for Judaism, there’s another rabbi (Tovia Singer) on a website called outreach Judaism which specifically is about counter-missionary stuff. Otherwise Myjewishlearning.com is a good place.

No real Jewish organization recognizes messianics because A.) their end game is to make us Christian and wipe Judaism off the map in order to bring about the second coming and B.) they break fundamental laws, and the breaking of those laws means you are not counted amongst Klal Yisrael (the Jewish people). An ethnically Jewish person CAN return, if they give up the whole Jesus-messianic thing. But unless or until they do, they are simply a Christian person with Jewish heritage.

this is different from kids in interfaith families! Messianics are upsetting because they are lying to and deceiving Jewish people.

Apologies for my ignorance as well, but if you have time could you please go into more detail about how Jesus doesn’t meet the requirements to be the Messiah/Moshiach? (Also please please tell me if I, as a non Jew, should be using one of the words rather than the other aaa)

I grew up in a Christian home so I was obviously taught that he fulfilled everything perfectly ^^;

I mean essentially if you refer to Christianity saying Christ is just saying “Messiah” in Greek. 

Whereas Mashiach/Moshiach (alt. pronunciation) is the hebrew for Anointed One, and is a Jewish term. Confusingly, Moshiah is the term for “Savior” but those are not the same thing, and in Hebrew these words are not actually etymologically similar and have different roots. In any case, we don’t believe Jesus is either the anointed one, or our savior. 

The Mashiach is supposed to fulfill some obvious requirements:

Also the Mashiach must be descended on his father’s side from King David in order to be from the same tribe/lineage. As Jesus by the NT had no human father, he could not be a descendent of King David qualified to be the Mashiach. 

That one thing alone is actually quite complicated, Aish explains it in full:

So he’s not from the appropriate potential Messianic line, he did not fulfill any of the requirements of the Jewish Mashiach, and also he missed the era of the Prophets, so he isn’t even a Jewish prophet. 

 TL;DR Jesus did not fulfill any Jewish requirements to be Mashiach/The Anointed One. But Christians feel that he fulfilled Christian ideas of the Christian Messiah. It’s just they aren’t the same thing. 

That was very educational. Thank you @keshetchai

This whole thing does an EXCELLENT job of explaining the whole issue of Jews for Jesus (which is to say that, according to every branch/sect of Judaism, they’re just not actually Jews). ALSO covers why Jesus wasn’t the Jewish Messiah.

Thank you - I didn't know any of this! My initial reaction to OP was 'huh, that's interesting, I didn't know that there were any branches of Judaism (or schools of thought within it) that acknowledged Jesus as an important figure, does he count as some kind of prophet? I shall read on to find out!' Followed by 'hold on, why are people so angry, I thought Judaism on the whole encourages debate on differences of theological opini... oh. OH.'

And then the added and beautifully detailed fun of the Mashiach explanation.

Thank you @keshetchai for taking the time to explain.

everyone jewish, please turn off submissions. i woke up to that this morning & threw up because it was so horrible & ended up having a break down that involved crying & my mom coming in to see what was wrong.

*hugs*  I wish that there was something I could do to help.

unfortunately, there’s always gonna be people like that in this world- all that can be done is signal boosting.

(hint followers: reblog, be aware, make sure your Jewish followers are aware, too even if you are not Jewish yourself)

Report them, too.

Instead of just ‘block’ use ‘flag’ and report them for violation of tumblr guidelines. Flag autoblocks them for you, and sets tumblr to investigate.

This is how to flag:

-Go to their blog

-Click the little head symbol

-Click “Flag this blog” on the drop-down menu

I think you can do it from the notification on the activity page or inbox? Though I use xkit so I often forget what functionality is actually there in the normal version and what just seems so obvious but which tumblr doesn’t give us. :P

There should be a way floating around the interwebs somewhere, that details how to find the IP address of and block anon users.

Oh yes, tumblr’s integrated that now so you can just block anon users and it blocks their IP. Because very occasionally tumblr does something right. 

ALSO AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY you are loved, you are wonderful and strong and this is appalling behaviour that you shouldn’t have to put up with and they are shitty human beings. I know it doesn’t help when you’re being subjected to that  kind of attack but their opinions about you really don’t matter. The only thing that matters is that they’re making you feel unsafe, and that’s not okay. But you’re not alone. We’re all here for you, as much as it is possible to be online.

What I don’t think people realize is that antisemitism isn’t just prevalent in Christian history, its institutional.

The church was directly responsible for antisemitism in Europe and for over a thousand years was actively involved in spreading and promoting antisemitism.

That’s only the half of it. 

The church didn’t merely instigate antisemitism—it benefited from it. If you look back at instances of antisemitism throughout European history, you’ll see that on numerous occasions, after Jews were murdered or expelled, their property and belongings were all confiscated by church. In instances where Jews were permitted to stay somewhere, they often had to pay double taxes, sometimes to the state and sometimes directly to the church itself. Moreover, even in situations where the church wasn’t directly involved, it still stands that the citizens of many officially Christian states (and those states themselves) benefited from the appropriation of Jewish wealth. Who got our homes when we fled the country because of pogroms? Who got our pots and pans and furniture and clothes and jewelry and candlesticks when we were slaughtered by the millions? 

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

You are describing events that happened over a thousand years after Christianity was ‘built’. While the things you are describing absolutely did happen and they were (and, where they persist in any form, are) terrible, this last statement grossly overstates the role it has played in church history.

Basically, 315-450 CE was a defining time for the development and establishment of Christianity as we know it today. Religious scholars agree that without the Christian progress made during this era, the church may not have survived. This was absolutely the era in which Christianity as the world presently knows it was built.  

Meanwhile, during the 4th and 5th Centuries…

SO ANYWAY 

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

@n1ghtcrwler even if you choose to disregard all of the above, Christianity literally exists because the Roman empire killed a Jewish man.  Do you care to take back your statement?

I do not disregard all of the above.  I do, however, point out that it relies on a terrible misrepresentation of both Roman and church history, and especially of the actual impact of Nicea upon Christianity.  The argument is not wrong in fact, but in application, because it fails to see that time period for what it was.  It assumes that the church, functionally, owes its very existence to Constantine, which is such an overreach that I took time to seriously consider whether or not it was even worth going through the effort of trying to untangle.  In what way was Christianity likely to die out before this period?  In what way was Christianity defined during this period?  Shall we ignore the fact that Christianity had been consistently growing prior to this point and had never seen a period of decline that would indicate it fading away without Constantine?  Shall we ignore the councils that had happened prior to the Nicene that established the vast majority of Christian doctrine, while putting all the emphasis on Nicea which existed only to answer one very specific question which, while important, is hardly a breaking point for church history?  To say that the church was built during this period assumes two falsehoods: that the period prior to it was functionally nonexistent, and that Christianity is fundamentally better because of Constantine.  I have addressed the former, I shall address the latter after the next paragraph.

Shall we ignore the fact that the Roman empire had been consistently opposed to Jews and had been in a series of conflicts and persecutions against them since they first entered Israel?  That the expelling of Jews from Jerusalem is part of a very political series of events which included the sacking of that same city centuries earlier?  That is, should we assume that the terrors which visited the Jews during this period are the result and tool of Christianity, thereby ignoring the sufferings of Jews for centuries prior and disconnecting their experiences from these, which are committed by the same body throughout, in order to attribute them to the church?

What, exactly, does Christianity actually owe to Constantine?  Were his acts, in fact, Christian acts?  Seeing as he favored Christianity but did not actually join it until extremely late in his life, and that he very clearly disregarded existing Christian doctrine involving how to treat people, I don’t see how we could do anything but view his actions as fundamentally political.  Can we hold the church accountable for the actions of someone who was not even part of it while he was doing them?  Did Christianity benefit from Constantine?  From any theological perspective, no, it suffered greatly.  People claiming affiliation with the church have found ways to benefit greatly in every instance where the church was tied to the government - the church, and its doctrines, have always suffered under the same arrangement.  The gospel is seen least in those places where the government has announced itself Christian.  To say that Christianity owes its very existence to Constantine, in fact to state that the church was built during this period, is to deny all of Christian doctrine and hold the church as little more than a political body which exists in blatant opposition to the words of Christ Himself.

The events listed happened.  To hold them in the regard the argument does is to show complete disregard for church history, church doctrine, Roman history, and any attempt to be credible while speaking on this topic.

As to the death of Christ, this is the only argument raised on this post that holds any power at all.  However, as the point of the post is to hold the church accountable for and as direct beneficiaries of antisemitism, it hardly fits.  The church certainly wasn’t involved in crucifying Christ, not least of which because it didn’t exist yet, so holding it accountable is nonsense.  But do we not owe our existence to Christ’s death and resurrection?  Absolutely.  Of course, describing the church as direct beneficiaries of Roman antisemitism both ignores that the early church was actually victim to that same antisemitism, and surprisingly similar to saying that the modern civil rights movement is a direct beneficiary of American racism.  It may be true that the origins lie there, but to consider it beneficial to the movement is a farce that ignores what the thing actually is.

And, finally, @ceciliadavidson raised the point that Christians pray for the salvation of Jews.  Look, we believe that Christ is the only means of salvation.  Which means we pray for the salvation of literally everyone who doesn’t know Christ.  The fact that this would apply to Jews has nothing to do with antisemitism and would require extending the definition of oppression so broad as to be functionally meaningless.

So, no.  I do not wish to withdraw my statement.  But thanks for asking.

Okay … so plainly put you really just don’t want to admit that there’s an institutional hatred of Jews.

I’m sorry, do you have any argument that anything I’ve said is wrong, or are you just doubling down on your previous statement and expecting that to be sufficient?

I’m doubling down because you’re doubling down on ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

Speaking as one raised catholic and incredibly ignorant of the Church’s long history of antisemitism, I’m going to ask one very simple question - 

why were you talking over a Jewish blogger in the first place in a discussion about antisemitism?

You seem to be missing quite a lot of what’s happening here.

I am not denying that antisemitism has been a recurring, and terrible, and at times important part of church history. I was specifically denying the claim that the church was built on it. I have, in fact, multiple times in this discussion acknowledged the truth of things that did happen that have been brought up in the conversation. What you are arguing against right now is not actually what was ever being said. Now, if you wish to argue my point, I invite you to do so. If you think that “this is a thing that keeps happening” is the same as “this is what your religion is built on,” however, I can only remind you that it is not.

As to your last question. The claim I was addressing was a false one, and I set about correcting it. I did not deny anyone’s experiences, I did not even address the OP (who was primarily, and accurately, talking about atrocities in a specific time frame) or deny any of the acts of antisemitism brought up. I did point out that they were being applied incorrectly. It seems like your question would be more suitable if I had, in fact, done any of those things. Perhaps you think that people should simply go unchallenged when making claims about another person’s religion on the simple grounds that they are presenting their own interpretation of it, but I doubt you would support doing that on any broad scale.

@tikkunolamorgtfo you hear that?

I’m done. This Christian makes the institution look far worse.

@n1ghtcrwler: Given everything you have written, I don’t think you and I have the same definition of what the term “built on” means. In my opinion, “built on” is defined by either actions or tenets that lead to an institution’s success or establishment of power. Native genocide wasn’t written into the Constitution or named as a defining principal of the United States, but America was built on Native genocide all the same. The founding principals of Christianity from a religious standpoint may or may not be built on Jewish oppression, but Christianity as an institution of power absolutely is; the rungs of its ladder to worldwide success were made out of Jewish suffering, and that is absolutely what I am talking about. 

Also, you have directed a lot of questions my way, asking me how I can make certain claims, but you seem to have missed the fact that every quote I offered up above was from a scholarly source. If you want answers, you should direct them to experts on Christianity and Roman history who wrote those texts. Forgive me if I am more inclined to take their opinions over yours. 

Finally, you wrote:

That’s wrong. If you try to convert Jews or even pray for them to “know Christ,” then you are praying for our cultural genocide. Hoping for Jews to convert to Christianity is to hope for the end of the Jewish people, and that is antisemitic as fuck. It doesn’t matter if you extend that hope to everybody who isn’t Christian. If your prayers for people to “know Christ” includes the end of the Jewish people, then you are an antisemite. 

We don’t want your salvation. Leave us alone. 

Not responding to the last few exchanges, since early christianity isn’t my field, and nor is the experience of Jews nowadays: just adding a few points re. medieval anti-semitism, primarily in England and western Europe.

It wasn’t just the church. The Christian church pretty much was society at that point, in addition to being a specific political structure. Many state institutions also actively persecuted or regulated Jewish activities and communities.

However - England was better! … for a while. Here’s a chart I made a few years back as background for a lecture I gave on Chaucer’s (violently anti-Semitic) Prioress’ Tale - which, incidentally, was written about a century after all Jews had been expelled from England. Given that tale involves a blood libel story, I’ve highlighted cases of the same below - and not explained them in detail because I was talking about them in the lecture. Crusades are included because military activity against foreign ‘infidels’ often corresponded with a surge in harassment of ‘infidels’ at home - ie, the rise of xenophobia that went with the Crusades had people left at home turning on Jews.

Note that this is centred on England, but things like the Lateran Councils are passing religious laws which would in theory be common across Christendom - though in some cases the English crown protected Jews against the church. 

Also note that the reason Jews were at first specially protected by the English crown is partly because they were to a certain extent exempt from canon law (both its protections and its stipulations), but mostly because they were a handy source of income for the crown. Christians, remember, are forbidden to lend money at interest, but many (especially the rich) want someone to borrow it from. As will become obvious as you follow the story below, this led to the crown relying more and more on them for demanding ‘loans’ that would never be repaid, and eventually bleeding them dry.

What I don’t think people realize is that antisemitism isn’t just prevalent in Christian history, its institutional.

The church was directly responsible for antisemitism in Europe and for over a thousand years was actively involved in spreading and promoting antisemitism.

That’s only the half of it. 

The church didn’t merely instigate antisemitism—it benefited from it. If you look back at instances of antisemitism throughout European history, you’ll see that on numerous occasions, after Jews were murdered or expelled, their property and belongings were all confiscated by church. In instances where Jews were permitted to stay somewhere, they often had to pay double taxes, sometimes to the state and sometimes directly to the church itself. Moreover, even in situations where the church wasn’t directly involved, it still stands that the citizens of many officially Christian states (and those states themselves) benefited from the appropriation of Jewish wealth. Who got our homes when we fled the country because of pogroms? Who got our pots and pans and furniture and clothes and jewelry and candlesticks when we were slaughtered by the millions? 

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

You are describing events that happened over a thousand years after Christianity was ‘built’. While the things you are describing absolutely did happen and they were (and, where they persist in any form, are) terrible, this last statement grossly overstates the role it has played in church history.

Basically, 315-450 CE was a defining time for the development and establishment of Christianity as we know it today. Religious scholars agree that without the Christian progress made during this era, the church may not have survived. This was absolutely the era in which Christianity as the world presently knows it was built.  

Meanwhile, during the 4th and 5th Centuries…

SO ANYWAY 

Christianity was built on the oppression and murder of the Jewish people. Period.  

@n1ghtcrwler even if you choose to disregard all of the above, Christianity literally exists because the Roman empire killed a Jewish man.  Do you care to take back your statement?

I do not disregard all of the above.  I do, however, point out that it relies on a terrible misrepresentation of both Roman and church history, and especially of the actual impact of Nicea upon Christianity.  The argument is not wrong in fact, but in application, because it fails to see that time period for what it was.  It assumes that the church, functionally, owes its very existence to Constantine, which is such an overreach that I took time to seriously consider whether or not it was even worth going through the effort of trying to untangle.  In what way was Christianity likely to die out before this period?  In what way was Christianity defined during this period?  Shall we ignore the fact that Christianity had been consistently growing prior to this point and had never seen a period of decline that would indicate it fading away without Constantine?  Shall we ignore the councils that had happened prior to the Nicene that established the vast majority of Christian doctrine, while putting all the emphasis on Nicea which existed only to answer one very specific question which, while important, is hardly a breaking point for church history?  To say that the church was built during this period assumes two falsehoods: that the period prior to it was functionally nonexistent, and that Christianity is fundamentally better because of Constantine.  I have addressed the former, I shall address the latter after the next paragraph.

Shall we ignore the fact that the Roman empire had been consistently opposed to Jews and had been in a series of conflicts and persecutions against them since they first entered Israel?  That the expelling of Jews from Jerusalem is part of a very political series of events which included the sacking of that same city centuries earlier?  That is, should we assume that the terrors which visited the Jews during this period are the result and tool of Christianity, thereby ignoring the sufferings of Jews for centuries prior and disconnecting their experiences from these, which are committed by the same body throughout, in order to attribute them to the church?

What, exactly, does Christianity actually owe to Constantine?  Were his acts, in fact, Christian acts?  Seeing as he favored Christianity but did not actually join it until extremely late in his life, and that he very clearly disregarded existing Christian doctrine involving how to treat people, I don’t see how we could do anything but view his actions as fundamentally political.  Can we hold the church accountable for the actions of someone who was not even part of it while he was doing them?  Did Christianity benefit from Constantine?  From any theological perspective, no, it suffered greatly.  People claiming affiliation with the church have found ways to benefit greatly in every instance where the church was tied to the government - the church, and its doctrines, have always suffered under the same arrangement.  The gospel is seen least in those places where the government has announced itself Christian.  To say that Christianity owes its very existence to Constantine, in fact to state that the church was built during this period, is to deny all of Christian doctrine and hold the church as little more than a political body which exists in blatant opposition to the words of Christ Himself.

The events listed happened.  To hold them in the regard the argument does is to show complete disregard for church history, church doctrine, Roman history, and any attempt to be credible while speaking on this topic.

As to the death of Christ, this is the only argument raised on this post that holds any power at all.  However, as the point of the post is to hold the church accountable for and as direct beneficiaries of antisemitism, it hardly fits.  The church certainly wasn’t involved in crucifying Christ, not least of which because it didn’t exist yet, so holding it accountable is nonsense.  But do we not owe our existence to Christ’s death and resurrection?  Absolutely.  Of course, describing the church as direct beneficiaries of Roman antisemitism both ignores that the early church was actually victim to that same antisemitism, and surprisingly similar to saying that the modern civil rights movement is a direct beneficiary of American racism.  It may be true that the origins lie there, but to consider it beneficial to the movement is a farce that ignores what the thing actually is.

And, finally, @ceciliadavidson raised the point that Christians pray for the salvation of Jews.  Look, we believe that Christ is the only means of salvation.  Which means we pray for the salvation of literally everyone who doesn’t know Christ.  The fact that this would apply to Jews has nothing to do with antisemitism and would require extending the definition of oppression so broad as to be functionally meaningless.

So, no.  I do not wish to withdraw my statement.  But thanks for asking.

Okay … so plainly put you really just don’t want to admit that there’s an institutional hatred of Jews.

I’m sorry, do you have any argument that anything I’ve said is wrong, or are you just doubling down on your previous statement and expecting that to be sufficient?

I’m doubling down because you’re doubling down on ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

Speaking as one raised catholic and incredibly ignorant of the Church’s long history of antisemitism, I’m going to ask one very simple question - 

why were you talking over a Jewish blogger in the first place in a discussion about antisemitism?

You seem to be missing quite a lot of what’s happening here.

I am not denying that antisemitism has been a recurring, and terrible, and at times important part of church history. I was specifically denying the claim that the church was built on it. I have, in fact, multiple times in this discussion acknowledged the truth of things that did happen that have been brought up in the conversation. What you are arguing against right now is not actually what was ever being said. Now, if you wish to argue my point, I invite you to do so. If you think that “this is a thing that keeps happening” is the same as “this is what your religion is built on,” however, I can only remind you that it is not.

As to your last question. The claim I was addressing was a false one, and I set about correcting it. I did not deny anyone’s experiences, I did not even address the OP (who was primarily, and accurately, talking about atrocities in a specific time frame) or deny any of the acts of antisemitism brought up. I did point out that they were being applied incorrectly. It seems like your question would be more suitable if I had, in fact, done any of those things. Perhaps you think that people should simply go unchallenged when making claims about another person’s religion on the simple grounds that they are presenting their own interpretation of it, but I doubt you would support doing that on any broad scale.

@tikkunolamorgtfo you hear that?

I’m done. This Christian makes the institution look far worse.

@n1ghtcrwler: Given everything you have written, I don’t think you and I have the same definition of what the term “built on” means. In my opinion, “built on” is defined by either actions or tenets that lead to an institution’s success or establishment of power. Native genocide wasn’t written into the Constitution or named as a defining principal of the United States, but America was built on Native genocide all the same. The founding principals of Christianity from a religious standpoint may or may not be built on Jewish oppression, but Christianity as an institution of power absolutely is; the rungs of its ladder to worldwide success were made out of Jewish suffering, and that is absolutely what I am talking about. 

Also, you have directed a lot of questions my way, asking me how I can make certain claims, but you seem to have missed the fact that every quote I offered up above was from a scholarly source. If you want answers, you should direct them to experts on Christianity and Roman history who wrote those texts. Forgive me if I am more inclined to take their opinions over yours. 

Finally, you wrote:

That’s wrong. If you try to convert Jews or even pray for them to “know Christ,” then you are praying for our cultural genocide. Hoping for Jews to convert to Christianity is to hope for the end of the Jewish people, and that is antisemitic as fuck. It doesn’t matter if you extend that hope to everybody who isn’t Christian. If your prayers for people to “know Christ” includes the end of the Jewish people, then you are an antisemite. 

We don’t want your salvation. Leave us alone. 

Not responding to the last few exchanges, since early christianity isn’t my field, and nor is the experience of Jews nowadays: just adding a few points re. medieval anti-semitism, primarily in England and western Europe.

It wasn’t just the church. The Christian church pretty much was society at that point, in addition to being a specific political structure. Many state institutions also actively persecuted or regulated Jewish activities and communities.

However - England was better! ... for a while. Here’s a chart I made a few years back as background for a lecture I gave on Chaucer’s (violently anti-Semitic) Prioress’ Tale - which, incidentally, was written about a century after all Jews had been expelled from England. Given that tale involves a blood libel story, I’ve highlighted cases of the same below - and not explained them in detail because I was talking about them in the lecture. Crusades are included because military activity against foreign ‘infidels’ often corresponded with a surge in harassment of ‘infidels’ at home - ie, the rise of xenophobia that went with the Crusades had people left at home turning on Jews.

Note that this is centred on England, but things like the Lateran Councils are passing religious laws which would in theory be common across Christendom - though in some cases the English crown protected Jews against the church. 

Also note that the reason Jews were at first specially protected by the English crown is partly because they were to a certain extent exempt from canon law (both its protections and its stipulations), but mostly because they were a handy source of income for the crown. Christians, remember, are forbidden to lend money at interest, but many (especially the rich) want someone to borrow it from. As will become obvious as you follow the story below, this led to the crown relying more and more on them for demanding ‘loans’ that would never be repaid, and eventually bleeding them dry.