Greedy Jewish tax collector

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The references are to Zaccheus, the tax collector who was shunned by most people because of his profession, and who Jesus ate dinner with despite the tax collector's reputation as persona non grata. The other reference is probably to Esther, who was a Jew in the old testament who married (I think) a Persion king and thereby became Queen. She used her influence with the king, her husband, to help the Jewish people who were being persecuted at that time in her country.

I can see how you might have been offended by these references if they were given out of context, or if the emphasis was somehow derogatory of Jews. The stories in and of themselves don't necessarily convey that message, and in my estimation they certainly shouldn't. Of course that doesn't mean some Christians don't twist them to convey an anti-Semitic flavor. It's hard for me to tell if that was what was happening at your church. The best thing might be to read the stories yourself and draw your own conclusions, then decide it this minister was portraying them accurately.

The story of Esther has nothing to do with a prostitute, spies or Jesus, so its unlikely that is what the preacher was referring to.

[Anonymous]

OP, before rushing to judgement and firing off an angry letter to the pastor, sit down and watch the documentary film "Paper Clips." Then invite your in-laws to watch it, and then e pastor. Sometimes people do not know really how what they are saying is hurtful

That being said, why would you be surprised that Jesus would be mentioned in a Christian church nor that Jesus is necessary to salvation. That the whole central tenet of Christianity. You cannot be a Christian and then deny that Christ was sent by God to redeem mankind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, before rushing to judgement and firing off an angry letter to the pastor, sit down and watch the documentary film "Paper Clips." Then invite your in-laws to watch it, and then e pastor. Sometimes people do not know really how what they are saying is hurtful

That being said, why would you be surprised that Jesus would be mentioned in a Christian church nor that Jesus is necessary to salvation. That the whole central tenet of Christianity. You cannot be a Christian and then deny that Christ was sent by God to redeem mankind.

There was nothing in OP's post that made me think she was surprised to hear Jesus mentioned in a Christian Church or was surprised to hear that Jesus was necessary to salvation. It is hard to believe that any Jew would be surprised by such information. We are bombarded almost daily by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi OP here, I appreciate everyone's responses. I'm still debating about whether or not to send the preacher an email...if I did send him an email, I think I would give him the benefit of the doubt, and just ask him to clarify what he was thinking with his references in his sermon to Jews. I think that there were 3 references to Jews in such a short period of time is what caught my attention. It was the "greedy Jewish tax collector" line that made me angry. Many people in this area of the country have never had contact with or met a Jewish person. So even though the biblical reference may be accurate, I think many individuals currently in the church may be misguided into thinking that such stereotypes of present day Jews are accurate.

The only other reference to Jews that have been made in my presence, was during their Easter pagent, a number of years ago-- They yelled out "the Jews killed Jesus." Is this also a commonly held belief by churches or just Southern Baptist churches?

I am not Baptist nor of any Protestant denomination, so I cannot comment on what is said in their Easter services. However, the zero man Catholic liturgy for Palm Sunday and Good Friday contains the following exchange from the Gospel of St. Matthew:


20
h The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas but to destroy Jesus.
21
The governor said to them in reply, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They answered, “Barabbas!”
22
* Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”
23
But he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” They only shouted the louder, “Let him be crucified!”
24
* i When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.”
25
And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

This has been portrayed by some that the Jewish people bear responsibility for the suffering and death of Jesus. However, the Second Vatican Council held that this passage should not be construed as laying the blame for Jesus' death at the hands of the Jews nor cursing them for all time. It is the sinfulness of all mankind that is responsible.

Now, Carholics generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory. It is not a literal accounting of historical fact. This is ver different from Protestant fundamentalist denominations that interpret the Bibke in a literal sense. It is because of this that Catholics can easily co-exist with the theory of evolution while fundamentalists seebitvasca threat to their faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Now, Carholics generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory. It is not a literal accounting of historical fact. This is ver different from Protestant fundamentalist denominations that interpret the Bibke in a literal sense. It is because of this that Catholics can easily co-exist with the theory of evolution while fundamentalists seebitvasca threat to their faith.

I'm sorry, but in my experience it is not at all true that Catholics "generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory". If that was the case, then why were wars fought over the doctrine of transubstantiation? And why is it that women cannot be priests, or that gays cannot marry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now, Carholics generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory. It is not a literal accounting of historical fact. This is ver different from Protestant fundamentalist denominations that interpret the Bibke in a literal sense. It is because of this that Catholics can easily co-exist with the theory of evolution while fundamentalists seebitvasca threat to their faith.

I'm sorry, but in my experience it is not at all true that Catholics "generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory". If that was the case, then 1) why were wars fought over the doctrine of transubstantiation? And 2) why is it that women cannot be priests, or that gays cannot marry?

Answers:

1.Those wars you mention were fought before Catholics changed their understanding of the bible. so it goes.

2. They kept the parts of the bible that served their purposes and built them into church doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a Christian, I cringe at the language used, and would never attend a church that professed such views.

I'm a Christian too and I wouldn't go to this church again after I heard this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Does Christianity teach the fear of God? Judaism does not teach its followers to fear God. Judaism is more than a set of rules.

I thought Judaism teaches that God will reward the good and punish the wicked and the dead will be resurrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judaism is a legalistic religion. Follow the rules and watch what you eat and you are a good jew. In Christianity you can eat what you like. People are saved by grace and grace alone. No deeds will be enough to buy you your pie in the sky.

That may be for baptists. In Orthodoxy you have to fast, pray daily, follow ten commandments and fight your sinful nature and do good deeds. You have to work hard to get there.

[Anonymous]

Orthodoxy - as in Orthodox Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Not PP but I think she was talking about Orthodox Judaism.

[Anonymous]

That's why I asked for clarification.

[Anonymous]

OP, there are a variety of Christian experiences dating back to the earliest churches established in the Middle East, Asia Minor and Africa to churches that are only. Few hundred years old. What all these churches have in common is the core belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, the Son of God sent to redeem mankind for its sinfulness. After that, it gets tricky with the first Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches occurring in 1054 over doctrinal issues concerning the nature of God the Son and the Holy Spirit and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Several years later, came the Protestant Reformation in Europe. The central tenets of the Protestant Reformation were that faith alone brought salvation and that the a bible alone contained all the information needed to understand a god and salvation (sola scriptura). From there, the Great Awakening in the United States further shattered the Protestant world in America into more denominations. So, Christianity is incredibly diverse, and I would not take the ramblings of some ignorant preacher (whose only preparation for the ministry may have been attendance at some small college) as representative of Christians or Christianity.

[Anonymous]

meant to say some small bible college..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now, Carholics generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory. It is not a literal accounting of historical fact. This is ver different from Protestant fundamentalist denominations that interpret the Bibke in a literal sense. It is because of this that Catholics can easily co-exist with the theory of evolution while fundamentalists seebitvasca threat to their faith.

I'm sorry, but in my experience it is not at all true that Catholics "generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory". If that was the case, then 1) why were wars fought over the doctrine of transubstantiation? And 2) why is it that women cannot be priests, or that gays cannot marry?

Answers:

1.Those wars you mention were fought before Catholics changed their understanding of the bible. so it goes.

2. They kept the parts of the bible that served their purposes and built them into church doctrine.

But my point is that all of those are examples of Catholics taking things extremely literally. I'm not aware of any Catholic that understands Jesus to have been speaking metaphorically when he said "this is my body, this is my blood," even though (IMO) that is the most natural way to understand that.

Perhaps you mean that Catholics don't take it literally when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Of when he said give to everyone who begs from you, or let him who is without sin cast the first stone?