Why it is anti-Semitist to refuse to admit that Jesus' antics put the lives of innocent Jewish leaders and civilians at risk

The Eucharist implies that the Jews were behind the execution of Jesus and because of that Jesus left us his body and blood to remind us every week of what the Jews supposedly did.  This is quite threatening behaviour for the Jews of today.

Nobody talks about how this man endangered the Jews.

John 11,

47 the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs.

48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all!

50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

The text says that the High Priest was prophesying meaning he was getting the information from God. The information is that Jesus being alive was a threat to the people and the text hints that the High Priest without realising it was teaching that Jesus would die for sinners. The other Jewish leaders agreed there was a danger in letting Jesus remain alive. The gospel itself does not say they are wrong. Jesus seems to worry and goes into hiding in case something happens to the people. There was going to be no meeting unless there was a danger. The Jewish leaders the Pharisees tried to keep on the right side of the Romans so they would not have had the meeting which cast the Romans in a sinister light unless they felt it was an emergency.

Jesus in this gospel called the Jews liars in whom there was no truth at all and children of the Devil.  In Matthew 23 he said they killed all the good men who ever lived and dared them to kill people like him.  He told the apostles the Jews would murder them and actually would kill many of his disciples. 

Directly and indirectly he nearly brought bloodshed on his people.  And the Jewish leaders cannot be attacked without their women and children being targets too.  And what about their slaves?

He attacked the Temple which could easily have led to the people attacking the leaders.  The risk would have alarmed the Romans  Despite the gospels saying Jesus was able to parade around Jerusalem and be acclaimed as king after, that would not have happened at all.  He would have been arrested immediately.

And the Church says anger is not a sin if you can control it and can show it has led you to bring about good.  Jesus did lose control in the Temple for all he had to do was keep it verbal.  Throwing tables over and hitting people with a whip was overdoing it.  They would have just have thrown him out and carried on so it did no good.  Even the gospels don't tell us why it was so necessary.  And that is because they cannot.  And he didn't do it all alone either.  He seduced others to do it with him.  He had to have done.

The Jews wanted Jesus out of the way but not necessarily dead out of a good place, the place of self-defence.  Only anti-semitists want to ignore this.


No Copyright