Is The Gospel of John Anti-Semitic? 

She's also upsettingly sexy!!

I am not convinced. It seems a distinction without a difference. In the nineteenth century the hatred and persecution of the Jews was given a more philosophical and (pseudo) scientific explanation/justification but the phenomenon was basically the same. Jews were considered responsible for the death of Jesus as descendants of the Jews of Jerusalem: the problem was their specific bloodline, not just a different religion. The conversos (Jews converted to Catholicism in 1400s 1500s Spain and Portugal) were still treated as second class citizens and often persecuted even after the conversion.

Indeed, yes. There may have been religiously-based antisemitism but it was a somewhat different and perhaps even a better kind. Although the pogroms following passion plays, the blood libel, the expulsions were quite awful in the Middle Ages.

Not sure if the expulsion of the Jews from England was for which type of your anti-semitism? Oh wait it was for land and money and they used Matthews antisemitism as an excuse. Now let’s look at all of those towns where Jews were exterminated so their money could fund the crusades…So many events to categorize.

What? Have you read what Martin Luther had to say about them in the 16th century?

Jewish remains were recently found in Norwich well. They were medieval pogrom victims. Thrown down a well for Jesus.

Great point

Excellent post. From the video, it appears we might not know exactly what he meant. He might have been talking about jewish people that had no attachments to Jesus, versus his group of jewish people that did have attachments to jesus.

That’s the assumption, but maybe John’s thinking evolved.

But they were ethnic Jews. So did they view fellow Jews as traitors? I really don’t get the anti semitism in the Bible (if you interpret it that way).

John 8-44, kjv,Jesus himself describes the jews,before they killed him

Barts as loaded with agenda as any believer, i'm somewhat read in the field and find he presents one position, and is overly dismissive of a scholarly conservative position, he presents a liberal critical position well, but its one positions and as biased as the conservative one.

What? In my church it's just common knowledge. Of course he was a Jew. That's why he was called King of the Jews and believed to be a descendant of King David through Mary, a Jew. You know cause, in Christian tradition Joseph is the step-father. He went to the synagogue and was circumcised. A big part of Stephen's speech-- the first martyr-- was that the Jewish people had killed Jesus, a prophet sent by God, and maybe more than that, just as their fathers (ancestors) had killed many of the other prophets.

@@ivettezepedamedel Well, non of those arguments would cut it with that young man. It took Jesus actually saying it. Changing the subject just a bit, I was once in a discussion group with Unitarians where someone said, "Did the Jews kill Jesus?" I said, "When you say that, which Jews do you mean? The common people? The Pharisees, the Sadducees? The Zealots? The Sicarii? The higher priests? The general priests? The Galileans,? The Judeans? Those in Perea or Trachonitis?Those living in Egypt, where there were more Jews in Alexandria than in Jerusalem? The multitudes of Jews in Babylonia or Assyria? Or in Asia Minor, or Italy, or Gaul? Which Jews do you mean? Everyone's eyes glazed over. ___________ By the way, neither of the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke traces Jesus' ancestry to David through Mary. Both trace him through Joseph, although they do not agree even as to the names of Jesus' paternal grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather, etc. etc. But it is true that anyone born of a Jewish mother was considered Jewish.

@@jamesboswellii2034 @@jamesboswellii2034 @@jamesboswellii2034 I wasn't saying the all the Jews or some Jews killed Jesus. I don't care either way. I was just pointing out that a prominent figure in Christianity, Stephen the first martyr-- which is to say it's in Christian teachings not that I wholeheartedly believe it-- as the narrative goes told a presumably Jewish mob that just as their fathers had killed the prophets they had killed Jesus. But yeah, I got the genealogies part wrong but point is even the bible makes it clear that Jesus was rejected by his own people which despite having doubts that some Jews got Jesus killed, as an ex-Baptist I couldn't ever feel upset about it if they or Pilate did as we tend to hold a sense of individuality when it comes to accepting Christ and the Christian faith that probably stems from how our baptisms are supposed to be a public profession of our faith and personal decision. If you accept Jesus you accept him in sincerity and not for reputation, family, friends, to save face. So, coming across a Jew whose ancestors may or may not have killed someone who used to be my Savior I wouldn't take that personally even then. Lying to yourself and everyone around you no matter what kind of Christian you are is the most hypocritical thing you can do, and is probably the most disheartening thing I keep from my parents. I prefer honesty and true devotion and if a Jew anywhere ever takes issue to Christianity I don't hold it against them. Not when I was Christian and not now. I know that if I went back a few millennia, centuries, decades, or even now certainly there would be direct family and extended family who have done despicable things and even if it turns out some Jews did say, "his blood be upon us and our children" I don't hold it against their children. Not when I was a Christian and not now. And I don't think I'm an outlier for believing that. And just about everything I said about accepting Jesus as Christ being a personal decision is probably applicable to most protestant denominations in the US. You can't easily have a personal relationship with God in the Catholic church in medieval Europe looming over your every decision. If anything we, they, Christians generally don't like Calvinists because they believe in predestination. Christians who proselytize and evangelize generally don't like predestination. And my Baptist church absolutely does believe in spreading the faith and the good news but as with many protestants we do believe your faith is a personal decision and that blatantly contradicts predestination beliefs. Granted that personal decision and individuality gets more complex if your born into the faith like I was and the nice sweet old lady and my parents think at age 9 I will not only understand the Jesus-died-for-the-sins-of-humanity story but will of course believe it. Why wouldn't I? It took her repeating the story to me twice, as if I was just a dumb kid who wasn't listening, for me to realize my mistake. I was meant to say and expected to say "yes, I believe" and not "I'm not sure, maybe". So I said yes eventually to not worry my parents or the lady and because it was just getting awkward. I even considered getting re-baptized 3 years later at 12 because that's when I actually started to believe in it for myself but I only wanted it to be between me and God and didn't like the idea of it being public. I'm too much of a recluse. I didn't want people asking me why I got rebaptized or congratulating me. So I never did get rebaptized which ironically doesn't matter in Baptist churches. It's your decision, it's your profession of faith and despite it being an accepted ritual in Baptist churches, you do it for yourself and not for family, friends, church, and never for the salvation of the soul. It is solely a public display and profession of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior but never a part of salvation. Therefore no one will zealously care if you chose not to do it. Not even the pastor's wife even cared. Though that may not be too surprising either since she grew up Presbyterian and they know they believe what they believe just as much as any devout Christian does, even though they don't absolutely refuse baby baptism like my Baptist church does. Anyway. I realized I might have lost you. My point is that in my denomination-- we don't like that term because it sounds impersonal-- we couldn't firmly hold a disbelief in Jesus being the messiah very personally. Even if they were Jewish. We hold sincerity up pretty high. It rivals even integrity, so even if we may believe someone not believing is in the wrong their sincere disbelief is respected as belief must be sincere. I don't see how a religion that portrays itself as compassionate and sympathetic could ever think integrity overrides it or even wrestles with it.

@@ivettezepedamedel Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. Given these three propositions: 1. All Jews are awful [which is a vile belief, but that doesn't stop some people from believing it] 2. Jesus was perfect 3. Jesus was a Jew Well, something's got to give. And if one is not willing to let go of either (1) or (2), it's got to be (3) that gives -- even if disbelieving (3) is ludicrous on the face of it.

Thank you for finding a way to put at least a small chink in that young man's armor. We can hope you caught him young enough...

It is a most wonderful movie: the acting, script , with story a tad dated. I have watch it many a time. Love it.

I like the great Antonio an I heard that he was Jesus incarnate an use to live there in Montreal can you shed some light into this mystery.

"Let's do it New York style: 'Behold the fucking lamb.'" 🤣

I just saw Jesus of Montreal for the first time today. The scene where Daniel overthrew the tables first made me laugh and cheer, then I watched the scene again and it made me cry. Such a good movie!

You notice that when reading it too? Man! I thought I was the only one

*United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:* "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. *Jn 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.* The prologue (Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. *Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form* are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament." *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

There are 2 Johns. In fact we do not know who wrote John Gospel. Somebody wrote a part and somebody else added to this part. We do not know the authors. It is a collective name John. As many other.

Excellent observation. The gospel of John is not univocal. It tries to be but it isn't.

That would explain the discrepancies cited by Bart here--another person picking up the story mid-stream and not making sure all the details mesh.

The pulled video appeared to be the wrong one as it was on a different topic related to John.

It appeared to be the wrong video for the title, and this is the right video for the title.

Agreed that it was a different topic in relation to John but it seems strange that it wasn’t presented again with an appropriate title.

I was mid-watching the old one when it was pulled. It seemed interesting. I'd like to finish it before I forget the first half of it.

@@brianmulholland2467 I'd bet they are going to release it again. My guess is they have taped a bunch of episodes in advance for weeks when it won't be convenient to tape a new episode. A lot of channels keep evergreen content on hand for that purpose.

Jesus may have said that but he was being sarcastic, as in, who tf could ever believe this.

@@crede9427 Luke said Jesus said that and with no comma.

@@Fran-ho7qu thx

@@notanemoprog No idea what mastodon even is - or what your point might be.

Absolutely the Gospels are a testimony that convicts the High Priest and Sanhedrin of murdering a member of God's beloved Davidic royal family. In Acts Peter sends the congregation out and away from Jerusalem while the Apostles deliberately provoked the zealots into violence against Roman occupation with the forethought intent that Rome retaliate by destroying Herod's Temple.

I was wondering the same thing.

It's long been the tradition/history that John was an overseer ('bishop' is a more modern word) at Ephesus,and lived there, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, in his later years. Close to Ephesus (just behind the hill above the amphitheatre) there's a house where he is supposed to have lived, and Mary is supposed to have lived there as well. Both are honoured with murals and local folklore. It's also long been the tradition that John, the Jewish apostle, was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. I have read John many time sand have never understood "the Jews" to mean the people as a whole. I just don't see it as a phrase that is anti-Jewish.

@@pdyt2009 The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th

@@termination9353 The religion was hijacked by Rome? Or was Rome hijacked by the religion? They gave the gospels a "Gnosticism" cover-story? Seems like the opposite is true, if you study the early church.

​@Therion Termi is an either an idiot or a troll that keeps posting this nonsense on almost every video. He seems to think he knows more than actual scholars.

@@therion5458 The Gospel was scrambled up. Here is some evidence. Does the hijackee scramble it's own doctrine or does the hijacker scramble the doctrine? EVIDENCE GOSPEL NARRATIVE SCRAMBLED The narraitve says first miracles Jesus turns water into wine, John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus Second miracle Jesus cures centurian's son, John 4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did So how can it say in between the first and second miracles that Jesus also performed miracles in Jerusalem? John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the MIRACLES which he did. " if you study the early church." The only reliable source for the 'early church' is the Book of Acts. (Acts shows Paul was a Roman agent provocateur whom the Apostles did not believe his conversion story. All epistles are counterfeits of the Catholic church.) From where do I learn your church history? From their own REVISIONIST history written to serve themselves up in the best light? I'm outright calling your Church and their historians outright fraud liars deceivers. What am I going to study their promotional materials for? Ask the accused to investigate themselves, pack the jury with THEIR fellow liars, and expect I'm going to get an honest adjudication? I have the Gospels THEY canonized. Why does THAT Gospel say Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved while this Church says it's John?

It’s called being a secular Christian. We like the culture, she loves the stories & we like Jesus & Paul’s teachings. We don’t have believe all of it like how a secular Jew doesn’t believe in all of it, it’s culture.

It is however what the terminology is. It's what anti-semitic means. It's what it was coined to mean and it's how it's always been used, even if it's not what it seems like a breakdown of the parts should mean.

@@notanemoprog He was the very first Nazi and was used by them in their propaganda campaigns in Germany. Though I agree that the concept of "races" is a late invention.

Von den Jüden und iren Lügen (1543) On the Jews and Their Lies) might be a clue how martin Luther felt on the subject. But to be fair; he didn't like women, gypsies, Muslims, negros; just about anyone.

@@russellmiles2861 That makes him a very typical Christian, no?

​​@@notanemoprog are you saying they weren't targeted during the Black Death or the Inquisition? For not just religious reasons.

@@ji8044 I thought it bemusing that Professor Ehrman asserted that John is not "anti-sematic" but against Jews who reject Jesus. I would even say that was sophistry. If attacking Jews because they aren't Christian isn't antisemitic! Anyway, that is the entire point of Christianity; servility to Greko/roman culture and that the Jews who rebel against such are the enemy. This is just a Christian thing until post war revision to incorporate humanism by acknowledge Jews could saved too. This sticker is that if some folk who reject Jesus can be saved - with no theological criteria as to why? Then who else can access the non-Saviour clause. Have we all gone Full-Universalism.

This is how regular americans discuss things. Unfortunately, the loud mouths get more tv time and tv is an exported product so the rest of the world gets that view

Wow, that's very condescending and disrespectful to the work of a woman that is making such an awesome content available to you for free. Megan is clearly always invested in the interview and interested in what Bart is explaining. When she types, she's obviously taking notes about what Bart is saying to best conduct the interview and make related questions afterwards. Her job is not just to look pretty and interested, she's an interviewer and hostess.

I assure you Jews were anti Christian in their day (and still are). We don't need historical revisionism to address emotional distress

The term anti-semitism was coined by someone who hated Jews to be a more scientific sounding replacement for the term Judenhass (Jew hatred) and was never intended in this context to include all semitic peoples.

It's a convention, and conventions are not always perfect. Language is imperfect. In normal parlance, anti-Semitic refers to the Jews. It's not a geo-political war statement. On top of this, language will never be perfect, and people will be killing each other over words, forever. Did you actually listen to the video? I take it you did not?

Because they want to be special and separatists. The NT isn't anti Semitic, but anti judean elite.

Because your people don't hold the reigns of power. You know this well. Anti semitic isa slur used to silence opposition and nothing more.

Good point - I had never thought of that

don't confuse religion with history

Thx 👍

The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

​@@termination9353 No. *United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:* "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. *Jn 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.* The prologue (Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. *Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form* are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament." *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

@@epicofatrahasis3775 The accused making excuses for themselves? I don't accept the accused being Judge and Jury over themselves. The Gospels that THEY canonized says Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved NOT John as they claim. IN THE GOSPEL black and white, one plus one equals two. How does your Conference of Catholic Bishops explain their way around THAT? Or how does the accused explain their way around THIS... EVIDENCE GOSPEL NARRATIVE SCRAMBLED The narraitve says first miracles Jesus turns water into wine, John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus Second miracle Jesus cures centurian's son, John 4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did So how can it say in between the first and second miracles that Jesus also performed miracles in Jerusalem? John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the MIRACLES which he did.

@slay2525 Thank you for the insult. You had a million better ways to close your argument but you elected to take this path. If anything, it puts on full display the dearth of your character and the weakness of your argument. Obviously you missed the gist of my argument, but I'm not at all surprised. The deeper you shove your head up you @ss, the longer you keep it there, the less likely you'll be able to find your way out. To avoid a childish comeback, this was not learned by experience. You may argue that the gospel of John might have had some of the earlier building blocks of anti-Semitism, but in itself is not anti-Semitic.

I don't think so. I think Paul was trying to recruit God-fearers, not Jews.

The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

@@termination9353 “It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, and space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet. Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy”

@@NoWay1969 So you prove you are a child. Gonna moon us next?

@@termination9353 (‿|‿) At least I don't reason like a child.

What bullshit, so everyone that isn't Jewish is just vulgar and egoistic?

Correct. The synoptic gospels talk about the Jews in terms of the Sanhedrin, their leaders etc, whereas the gospel of John just says Jews. This is due to an evolving split between the early Christians and Jews.

lol. lmao even.

Can you reference the passage please? No paraphrase, no explanation, just the facts. 'll read it for myself.Thanks.

Absolutely the Gospels are a testimony that convicts the High Priest and Sanhedrin of murdering a member of God's beloved Davidic royal family. In Acts Peter sends the congregation out and away from Jerusalem while the Apostles deliberately provoked the zealots into violence against Roman occupation with the forethought intent that Rome retaliate by destroying Herod's Temple.

@@pdyt2009you cant find the trial scene in John? - jeez