Roman Catholicism - the mother of anti-Semitism
Christianity - sower of the seeds of the Nazi Holocaust


The Old Testament is the Jewish Bible. Christians hijacked it and turned it into a preparation for Jesus. The Old Testament contains barbaric laws which even Jesus said really came from God. The Church used this badness which it chose to largely disobey as a weapon against the Jews. "Look how terrible they are for loving their scriptures and how superior and progressive we are for flouting their terrible laws."

The Jews are condemned for what happened to Jesus on the cross time and time again in the New Testament. That is pure anti-semitic sectarianism because the gospel of John says Jesus had to be put to death or the Romans were going to turn on the people over him. The high priest reasoned that it is better for one man to die that for the whole nation to perish. It is extremist.

When Jesus was supposedly on trial, the Jewish mob asked for a criminal, Barabbas to be released, so that Jesus would be crucified. Pilate washed his hands literally because he felt forced by them to kill an innocent man. That does not fit the popular hope that the Jews who had Jesus killed are a small mob not reflective of the wider Jewish community who were possibly bribed by the priests to help them destroy Jesus. How could Pilate fear such a grouping? Pilate was ruthless and would have happily crucified them all.

Christian fanatic JP Holding tries to lie and make out that when Pilate washed his hands and the people said, "His blood be upon us and our children" that the people were not taking responsibility but being prophets. They were predicting that they and their children would be made to suffer for the death of Jesus. That is a totally insane interpretation. It's an explaining away not an interpretation. They would have said, "His blood will be upon us" had they been predicting. They would not have talked as if they wanted the blame. And at that time there was no reason to think Jesus' decease would be that important. His followers had dwindled to nothing.
Some go as far as to say that as Pilate washed his hands the crowd was being ironic and sarcastic and meant, "The blood is on you and you wash your hands of it. Fine! Let the blood be on us now then!!!!!"

Matthew's gospel does the most to make us feel for poor Pilate who was forced by the big bad Jews to kill Jesus. In that way it makes Pilate innocent of killing Jesus for he was forced. Somebody was to blame. So the blame can only be put on the Jews – all of them. The rule of complicity is that unless somebody says or writes something against the execution they are complicit though science. Not one line of evidence exists that any of the Jews, apart from allegedly Joseph of Arimathea, was against the murder. A handful of exceptions would not count anyway. The whole people were virtually to blame.

Acts 1:20 twists Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 to make them appear to refer to the fate of Judas who betrayed Jesus. The problem is the verses are plural. They are not about one person. Christians answer is that the text is about Judas but also the other Judases who collaborated with him – the Jews. This answer is possible if you assume prophecies really do predict the future. But it is an anti-Semitic answer. Judas or Judah is being used as an emblem for Judaism – the Judah religion. Or the Jewish race. Or both.

Luke says that Pilate reluctantly surrendered Jesus to the will of the Jews (Luke 23:25).  Luke 24:20 states that the Jews handed Jesus over for sentencing and then they crucified him. John 19:16 does the same thing as Luke. It says Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified. And when we ask to whom we have to go to the previous verse which mentions only the Jews. This evidently accuses the Jews of crucifying Jesus. This is a very serious slander.

The texts that blame all the Jews for killing Jesus or murdering him though it was the Romans are supposed to be referring to corporate responsibility. In that culture and even in many cultures today, you can be to blame for what you didn't do. "You see, we have a different sense of justice than in your society. In your society, you punish criminals. In our society, we punish crimes." That is how Fighting Words by Hector Avalos puts it. Even in our society we do that at times. An employer can be blamed for what his employee does against his will. The mother who pays her life savings towards her wealthy stubborn son's fine takes his penalty.

To that it is plain that it is hardly nice if the Bible is not saying all Jews were murderers of Jesus if it means that they are as good as. It is like desperation to accuse them of murder and that is the only avenue you can take to pin it on them. Imputing corporate responsibility does not necessarily make accusing nicer. It makes it worse. And corporate responsibility is all about how ordinary people provide the water for murderers to swim in and thus that they have no right to take the moral ground.

A quote from "Other responses emphasized that the New Testament itself, in passages like Luke 23:34, absolved the Judeans of responsibility."

Let us take a quotation about whether the Jewish people knowingly killed the Son of God. Did they mean to do that? The question is horrible for it implies it is unspeakable to kill the Son of God as if killing Jesus if he were an ordinary man does not matter as much.

Acts 3:17 like 1 Corinthians 2:8 is clear that the Jewish people who were behind the demise of Jesus did NOT know he was the Messiah.

Jesus in Matthew 21:33-39 says they did know. Attempts to water Jesus down go, he says all Jews made wine but not all did. Another is that all prophets are said to have been treated like dirt by the Jews which is untrue. I would suggest that all the prophets were treated badly as in being disrespected even if they were not hurt for the Old Testament continually complains about Jewish disobedience when when prophets were trying to reason with them. Jesus did make up some details but it would be dangerous to suggest the Jews would knowingly kill John's son so it's not in the same league. He meant it. You need to be able to separate the story bits in a parable from the bits that are not.

Even if the parable was a story, the point is that the people all knew who the son was. That is meant to be taken seriously. It is silly to say that everybody in a country drinks wine but it is not silly to say that everybody deliberately has somebody killed knowing who he is. Jesus told the parable to ordinary people and ordinary people know what to take literally and not to - they take declarations that all are to blame literally.

John 9:39-41 has Jesus telling the Jews they are blind. It has been argued this may not have Jesus' identity in mind. So its relevance is uncertain. It is not much of a help for if Jesus was really a righteous man and a servant of God they were still very bad. It is illogical to say that the Jews were not so bad if they meant to kill a holy person but were horrendously bad to kill the Son of God. His goodness was the point. Nothing else.

We read, "The most that can be said is that having seen Jesus heal a blind man, these Pharisees, in an unrighteous manner, declare themselves to have understanding which they lack, and slander Jesus after he has shown himself approved by God by the performance of miracles. But John 9 occurs some time before the crucifixion and takes place before only a set of Pharisees. The death of Jesus is far off, and is not even mentioned."

Nothing in the New Testament says that the Jews killed Jesus in COMPLETE ignorance. It is obvious from how popular Jesus supposedly was that they killed a man they suspected was God's Son. That is what is being suggested by the New Testament. They did not know what Jesus was but they had enough of an idea to be no better than those who knew exactly what he was.
In Acts 4:27 we read, "Indeed Herod and Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus." As there was a lot of visitors to Jerusalem from other parts of the country we cannot take "the people of Israel in this city" to mean that not all Israel was to blame. It means it was. It is a pointed statement but it is the way people talk and does not mean he did not blame the rest of Israel.


Religion says that God intervened with Sodom but not with the Holocaust. No sceptic of religious faith can be expected to respect or understand. Bitter opposition is the only choice. It is terrible to argue that God was right to let the Holocaust happen.

The electorate empowered the Nazis not invasion or force or lies. What did the electorate share for that to happen? Religion.

Pope Pius XII who died in 1958 knew all about the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazis during the Second World War from the start. He made no effort, despite all the means at his disposal, despite the discreet options open to him, to get this information out to the world so that something might be done. He made no condemnation of the persecution of the Jews. He even stated in writing that he admired Hitler though he knew that Hitler was a rabid anti-Semitist. Pius's Church spewed anti-Jewish sentiment in its official newspapers and continued to publish books and preach sermons against the Jewish people right up to the end of the Second World War. Such publications were an encouragement to Nazi thought and practice. Pius let the world think that what was happening to the Jews was not too bad.
Benedict XVI and his supporters would say that Pius had to be silent or he would make things worse. This does not excuse Pius failure to do anything. This is the Church that says that doing nothing and saying nothing always makes things worse.

Denmark was under Nazi rule. Yet the Danish Lutheran Church was able to condemn Nazi anti-Semitism and work to save the Jews. The Church and Danish people managed to save 7,000 Jews. The more powerful Roman Catholic Church in Rome refused to copy the Danish Church's example and in 1943 1,900 Jews were deported to Auschwitz from Rome itself!

To say the pope was right to say nothing for it would make this worse is to admit that he knew what was going on and took no action.

Catholics have said that he refused to condemn or speak out because the Nazis would turn on the Catholic Church itself. In other words, protecting Catholics loyal to the pope was all that really mattered. They are saying that a real evil, happening in the present matters less than a possible and preventable evil that may never happen. How twisted is that? And besides, if the Nazis started to persecute Catholics the world would have taken action to stop it. The Jews because of Christian slander were not considered to count for much and no Christian country was willing to do much to help them.
Praising the pope for saying nothing and excusing him by saying he didn't wish to risk the Nazis starting on the Church ignores the fact that the Nazis were hoping to eliminate the Jewish race not the Jewish religion as such. Plus Nazi support came from people who identified themselves as Catholics. Even if there was a risk, you don't let people slaughter all they want and say nothing over something they might not do or get the chance to do at all! Perhaps if some persecution of the Church took place, the pope speaking out could still have produced a better outcome than would have been had he said nothing.
The Nazis were supremely confident that no condemnation would come from Rome when they didn't touch Catholic clergy and prelates who would back the pope and condemn them if he did. Interesting. The Holocaust is an example of how Catholicism even if it had no Inquisition to destroy the Jews was happy to condone and use somebody else's. The Church knows that evil people gain reassurance and strength from going to communion and feeling part of a holy community. And the Nazis were always welcome to communion - uniforms and all. The Mass or Eucharist is a total insult to the blood of the Jews. The Church has never admitted or repented of this placebo for evil.

Hitler would need to renounce the Church or be renounced by the Church for the Church to avoid being tainted by what he did and taught in the name of Jesus. The Church at the time associated itself with his evil by failing to call him out by name and condemn him. Even today monsters are not named. If a religion will preach peace and love that is not enough for it must prove that it means it. It is not preaching but meaning it that matters.


Yes for moral reasons. Ephesians 4:17 says God's people must not live like the Gentiles. There is no trace of racism. It does not follow that if the New Testament was racist to Gentiles we can ignore its attitude to the Jews. Racism is racism. Gentiles was such a broad term that you cannot read any racism into it. Nobody was persecuting Gentiles for being Gentiles but the Jews were tormented in those days. It is not the same thing. It is racist and disingenuous to say it is.


Jesus was not an innocent person. He deserved to die the way he did as he condoned and even claimed responsibility for the laws commanding people to stone others in the name of God. To honour him at all is taking a step to anti-Semitism. The argument that this anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism could or would have happened anyway is an insult to human nature. It makes it a human issue not a religious one. Christians do not have it in for Hindus and treat their religion inappropriately the way they do Jews. We cannot do a double blind trial on it so we cannot assume that anti-Semitism would be rife or as rife or more rife without Christianity - a view that is itself anti-Semitic for it suggests there is something about the Jews that draws that kind of abuse or makes it understandable. We have to assume anti-Semitism is as bad as it can be instead of telling ourselves it would be worse if there were no Christianity. We have to blame Jesus and his religion.


No Copyright