OP, everyone in the stories that the pastor referred to was Jewish, including Jesus. The faction of Jews that later became Christians did so after Christ died so there were no Christians per se during Christ's time in earth. So the people the pastor was referring to were indeed Jews but he was not comparing them to "Christians" but to other Jews of the day.

Presbyterian (USA, but from a southern staten) here. Southern baptists are the worst. Absolute worst. I recognize the bible passages he is referring to. Yeah, they were all Jewish, Jesus was Jewish, it was a Jewish community for the most part. The pastor in my opinion is directly contradicting the meaning of these passages to get them to force people to tithe. The point is you don't have to give money in order to be Christian. Ugh, don't go back and don't take your kids, unless you spend time deprogramming them after. Also, don't assume everyone in the church believes what the pastor is saying. In the south a lot of times people keep going to a church because their family has always been there and they just get stuck with a bad pastor. We always had preachers who were way more conservative than us. That said, I would never ever attend or give money toa southern baptist church. They are very conservative, republican, preach that women should submit to their husbands, etc. They are the extreme. Many southerners and Christians intensely oppose the southern baptist church. I would not marry a southern baptist, but I would marry someone who was Jewish, catholic, whatever.

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.

Islam is also a religion of rules, as are a number of other religions.
Why does this offend you?

Sorry, but in Judaism there is no such thing as a good Jew or a bad Jew. Check your facts.

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.

Islam is also a religion of rules, as are a number of other religions.
Why does this offend you?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. . . He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. . . . Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. . . . Would you have been offended?

Frankly, I am wondering if you were missing the point of what the pastor was saying. For instance, the story if Zaccheus has nothing to do with jewish people in general being greedy. Everyone in the bible was basically jewish - jesus himself referred to gentiles as "dogs." Zacheus himself in particular was apparently despised (by jewish people) because he personally was a greedy tax collector. There's no anti-semetic inference to it. The story about the prostitute - she was a prostitute, and she became a christian, i.e., church-goer and non-prostitute. Again, I don't think there is anything anti-semetic about that either. So, while you say there was a bunch of other "superiority of chirstianity" rhetoric at the sermon, I am wondering if you did not just misunderstand what the pastor was saying. But it's hard to say for sure because I don't know what was said other than what you paraphrased here. Hope this helps.

Same PP again - I forgot to address this thing - the pastor was merely restating facts here. Moses was given several laws/ordinances directly from God for jewish people to follow, whereas Christians are free from those based on their faith in Jesus. The point when pastors mention this is absolutely, totally not about why not to be jewish, but rather, that we need to remember that it is through faith in Jesus that we are free and can go to heaven (i.e., don't forget Jesus! albeit this is a bad paraphrase).

Anonymous wrote:. . . He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. . . . Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. . . . Would you have been offended?

Frankly, I am wondering if you were missing the point of what the pastor was saying. For instance, the story if Zaccheus has nothing to do with jewish people in general being greedy. Everyone in the bible was basically jewish - jesus himself referred to gentiles as "dogs." Zacheus himself in particular was apparently despised (by jewish people) because he personally was a greedy tax collector. There's no anti-semetic inference to it. The story about the prostitute - she was a prostitute, and she became a christian, i.e., church-goer and non-prostitute. Again, I don't think there is anything anti-semetic about that either. So, while you say there was a bunch of other "superiority of chirstianity" rhetoric at the sermon, I am wondering if you did not just misunderstand what the pastor was saying. But it's hard to say for sure because I don't know what was said other than what you paraphrased here. Hope this helps.

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.

Islam is also a religion of rules, as are a number of other religions.
Why does this offend you?

If these had all been in different sermons, I wouldnt have thought that much about it (except for the greedy Jewish tax collector one - using the "Jewish" part was unnecessary to get descriptive meaning). But three times in a sermon seems a bit excessive.

I go to a very liberal church, and I'm pretty sure these things would have been handled differently. To deal with the change is philosophy, we probably would have pointed out that Jesus was protesting the legalistic style of the elders at the time, would probably have not mentioned the alignment with the Hebrew elders (in fact, that was in this week's readings, so that part of the Gospel must be up, and I dont recall the reference to her being anything but a "sinner"), and would have referred to the tax collector.

But is it hugely anti semitic? I'm having a hard time getting there. The historical Jesus' major beef was with the elders of his own religion, and to stop mentioning "jews" when teaching Jesus' life and works would be revisionist history. Where Christianity went off the rails was to blame all Jews throughout the ages for causing Jesus' death. Any trace of that thought going through teachings is harmful and closed minded.

Does your DH's family feel this way towards Jews since they frequent this church on a regular basis? That's what would concern me more. The minister won't care what you have to say because he talked about what he genuinely believes. I'm guessing your in laws agree with him. Otherwise they would have stopped attending such a hateful place like that long ago. It's a real wake up call, unfortunately.

Send that strongly-worded email please.

Perhaps this minister doesnt understand the point of the story of Zacchaeus. As recounted by Luke, it is an illustration of the radical inclusiveness and love that were some of Jesus' best qualities. At least that's how I interpret it. But I think most fundamentalists miss the whole point about Jesus, so what do I know?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I was raised conservative Jewish and I'd definitely be offended. I've gone to Friday night services for over 30 years, at ... 4 different temples in different states. NONE of the rabbis feel the need to put down other religions in order to talk about how great Judaism is.

That would absolutely offend me. I would write a very strongly worded email and never attend again.

I'm not sure how much difference an email from a person who only attend a couple of times a year with in-laws will make. On the other hand, I do think it's completely reasonable for you and your husband to politely refrain from attending any more services at that church. (Unless it's for something like a wedding/funeral.)
As a Christian, I cringe at the language used, and would never attend a church that professed such views.

I was raised conservative Jewish and I'd definitely be offended. I've gone to Friday night services for over 30 years, at ... 4 different temples in different states. NONE of the rabbis feel the need to put down other religions in order to talk about how great Judaism is.

That would absolutely offend me. I would write a very strongly worded email and never attend again.

I was raised in a reform Jewish household and identify myself as Jewish although not actively practicing. My husband grew up southern baptist (we met in grad school in the south) and also is not actively practicing his religion. We do go to church with his family, who are very involved In the church, when we visit them around 3-4 times a year. The church is located in a southern, heavily Christian area. I went to church with them this Sunday and was stunned at the references the pastor made towards Jews. Since my knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity is very limited, I'm not sure if his comments were atypical for a church or even, out of line... I also tend to mentally check out during church so unfortunately I wasn't paying great attention to the sermon, so I lack perhaps pertinent contextual details. It appeared as though the pastor began the sermon discussing father's day and the importance of fathers. Somehow the sermon took a turn and. He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. He then went on to discuss a story whereby a prostitute, who initially aligned herself with "Jewish spies" ended up turning on them when she encountered Jesus, bathing his feet in very expensive perfume, which others could not understand why she would use such expensive fragrances. Through helping Jesus and believing in him, he saved her...or something to that extent. Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. My husband was also troubled by the language used. I thought about writing an email to the pastor and asking him to clarify his statements. Does anyone have any insight into the references he used or whether this is commonplace? Would you have been offended?