‘Rabbi’ At Mike Pence Rally Thinks Jews Who Don’t Accept Christ Go To Hell

UncleScoopy

As the Good Lord, in His mercy, intended.

In other news, I am now Rabbi Scoopy. In fact, I am a “rabbi plus,” because unlike those other rabbis who hava nagila, I actually have two nagilas.

That’s my motto: “two nagilas, no waiting.”

And I’m proud to announce that I have been nominated for a third nagila.

Mazel tov.

This Pence rabbi is pretty much the ultimate con artist. In the mainstream of Judaism, anyone who accepts Jesus as his savior would not be of the Jewish faith at all, but the Christian. Since those people are actually Christian, therefore nobody of the Jewish faith accepts Christ as a savior, therefore all Jews are going to hell to spend eternity with their fellow horned creature, the devil.

Pretty standard Nazi position. (Not to mention pre-Nazi anti-Semitism).

One clarification to this philosophy: somebody who is Jewish by heritage, ancestry and culture can go to heaven, as long as they are Christian by faith. This is one place where this so-called rabbi would differ from Hitler, who wanted to root out Jewish blood as well as Jewish religious belief.

Well, I guess they would also part ways on the whole genocide thing.

But here’s the real kicker: this guy was conducting a prayer for those who fell in the synagogue massacre. They were mainstream Jews. None of them had accepted Jesus, of course. Therefore, he was speaking at a memorial service about people whom he has condemned to hell! Talk about providing comfort to their families!

To real Jewish people, this guy who calls himself a rabbi is simply running a scam to convert Jews to Christianity. (Hey, the fundies think they can convert gay people to straight. Compared to that, converting Jews to Christianity should be a walk in the park.) What was his training to be a rabbi? He graduated from the Jewish studies program at the Moody Bible Institute, and holds a bachelor’s degree in biblical studies from Northeastern Bible College, neither of which bears much resemblance to rabbinical training. (They are both Christian institutions. What a surprise!)

17 thoughts on “‘Rabbi’ At Mike Pence Rally Thinks Jews Who Don’t Accept Christ Go To Hell”

  1. Yeah, I’m a recovering Catholic, I’d heard all that, it just always struck me as a lot of blather. Jews didn’t go around crucifying everyone, that was a Roman punishment. If not for the Roman occupation, none of this would have happened.
    Based on absolutely no evidence, my guess is that when Christianity started getting big in Rome – 300 AD or so – the original story got edited.

    1. The Barabbas thing is in all 4 of the gospels, and I think the earliest texts of Mark are attested by 200 CE at the latest.

      This is in contrast to the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, which are in flat contradiction to each other, so they were definitely made up decades after the fact. (Matthew identifies Herod Archelaus as succeeding his father Herod the Great as ruler of Judea (4 BCE) causing the Jesus clan to move back from Egypt. Luke (badly) describes a census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, after Archelaus was deposed (6 CE) as causing them to go to Bethlehem. Matthew also implicitly says that Jesus was about 6 when the wise men showed up in Bethlehem.)

      1. Actually, Luke doesn’t mention Archelaus, just Quirinius, who may have had more than one (nonconsecutive) term as governor of Syria (I need to do more research on that). This may be why Luke calls it the “first” census.

        Matthew has the wise men show up while Herod the Great is still king. Nothing mentioned about Jesus’ age (“paidion” just means child, anywhere from toddler on up), unless I missed something.

        1. follow up, realized after posting:

          Herod orders all baby boys in Bethlehem 2 years and younger killed. Thus Matthew implicitly implies Jesus was no older than 2 at the Magi’s visit.

        2. Nope. We have a list of Governors of Syria and although the person in place from 4-1 BC is unknown, Quirinius was actively campaigning in Anatolia for the entire period.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_governors_of_Syria

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

          It appears you are correct about the age cutoff for the fabricated toddler murder being two and not six, but the exact wording of the passage in the original Greek isn’t helping you here, because it says Herod asked the magi when the star had appeared, and emphasizes that he chose the age cutoff based on that date. The text also notes that he was a young child and not a baby when the magi met him.

          The rest of Chapter 2 in Matthew is a sequence of nonsense where he fabricates events in order to claim they are fulfillment of “prophecies” only he was aware in out of context OT passages. Every New Testament scholar who isn’t carrying water for the ludicrous inerrancy doctrine knows this.

          The Gold Standard of Matthew’s bold faced lies was the entrance to Jerusalem on an Ass and a Colt, which the idiot depicted as two animals because he couldn’t read Hebrew, and didn’t know that the passage he was quoting from Greek translation was a hendiadys figuratively describing two characteristics of on animal.

          1. Just a historical note. Pilate did not become prefect until 26 AD. Various biblical dates may not be accurate, but two things we know for facts are (1) a trial of Jesus under Pilate could not possibly have taken place before 26 BC, (2) which was 30 years after the death of Herod.

            But I don’t think we can use 26 as the date of the trial. You guys would know more than I about the biblical claims, but I think it says in one of the gospels that Jesus began his ministry in the 46th year of the construction of the temple, which would be no earlier than 27 AD, possibly as late as 29. It also says that John the Baptist began his own ministry in the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius, which would be no earlier than the year 28 AD. Therefore, Jesus would have begun his ministry in the year 28 or 29, yes?

            Based on the gospel of Matthew, Jesus could have been born no later than 4 BC, the date of Herod’s death. If you assume that date, then he was 32 or 33 when he began his ministry. The gospels say he was about 30, which seems consistent enough.

            Given that, it’s unlikely Herod would have been looking for a six-year-old child in 4 BC, one born in 10 B.C. Such a child would have been more than 40 when Jesus died. It seems more consistent with the known facts that at the time Herod was near his own death in 4 BC, and that he was looking for an infant or toddler, which seems reasonably consistent with the “two or less” hypothesis.

            A lot of this speculation, however, depends on Herod’s role in the gospels. It is completely possible that: (1) the slaughter of the innocents is completely apocryphal; (2) that Jesus of Nazareth was born after Herod’s death, and that Herod’s role in the gospels is entirely fictional.

            As for the Census of Quirinius, we know when that was from Josephus, and it was a decade after Herod’s death, so either Luke or Matthew is wrong. It’s possible that they are both wrong, but it seems almost certain that Luke is.

          2. The answer is definitely “both are wrong”, Scoop. Scholarly consensus is that Matthew and Luke both wrote their version with a copy of Mark and a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus called “Q”. The giveaway is that there are passages, almost always direct quotations of Jesus, that are identical in Mattew and Luke but do not appear in Mark, but these verbatim identical quotations never appear in the same context in the story.

            There’s actually a very good case to be made that there was never any trial under Pilate, that the original Pauline Jesus was Docetist spiritual entity who incarnated and was crucified by demons in one of the lower Ptolemaic Crystal Spheres, somewhat analogous to the lower levels of Dante’s Paradiso. Mark wrote his Gospel as a “Midrash”, basically a metaphorical retelling of the holy story on Earth as an illustration. Sort of a pre-Printing “Veggie Tales”, if you like. Then someone picked up the story and ran with it as a new version of Christianity

            Here’s a long but thorough video on the topic:

  2. Jesus Christ, Dark Justin, what have you been smoking and do you have like, a little extra to spare?

    The Nazis weren’t rounding up the Christian subset of Jews and shipping them to camps (unless they were a little *too* Christian, like those Methodists who came at Sessions the other day). Scoopy is not saying all Christians are Nazis, he’s just pointing out the similarity of beliefs. There is a vein of anti-Semitism running through Christianity. I’ve never understood this – it was Romans, not Jews who nailed the Man up.

    The usual usage of the word “Jew” is to mean non-Christian Jew. “Jews for Jesus” has always been an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. The fact that they refer to their churches as synagogues doesn’t change this, it’s just part of their con. No, it’s not “extreme”, just deceptive. I had kind of thought those guys had shriveled up, but apparently Pence found the right rock, flipped it over and there they were.

    I’ll say it again: DON’T impeach Trump, pray he serves out his term, President Pence would be ten times scarier. There’s no limit to the screwing a guy will give you when he’s got God telling him it’s OK.

    I’m sure our reasoned discourse will get this all resolved in time for Rosh Hashish.

    1. “There is a vein of anti-Semitism running through Christianity. I’ve never understood this – it was Romans, not Jews who nailed the Man up. ”

      Roughly it goes like this. Judas betrayed Jesus to Jewish High Priest Caiaphas. Caiaphas in turn hands Jesus over to the Romans.

      Its worth mentioning that there’s always been anti-Semitism in the US. The KKK is very anti-Semitic for example. Henry Ford spent a lot of his money promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies in publications like the International Jew.

      1. Add to that –

        Following to an established tradition, Pilate offered the crowd a chance to free Jesus, and they opted instead for Barabbas the Thief. So Christians kinda think that the Roman Pilate had absolutely no thirst for the blood of Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jewish crowd had other notions.

        This does, however, lead to a sticky theological point. If the Jewish crowd had let Jesus go free, embraced him, and let him live to a ripe old age, would He still have expiated the sins of mankind? Would we still have eternal life open to us?

        It seems to me that the Jewish crowd and Caiaphas did what they had to do for the salvation of mankind.

        But then again, my theology is probably wrong. Religion is not my bag, baby.

        1. Actually, Scoopy, your point is quite accurate: without Jesus’ death and resurrection, we’re still left in our sins. So Caiaphas was truly acting as high priest when he ordered the execution of the Lamb of God, even if he didn’t know it.

          OTOH, had all the Jews, including Caiaphas, embraced their Messiah and followed him, it is quite possible that Rome would have seen him as a true threat–to Herod’s throne if nothing else. Thus Rome might have executed him on its own. That is, of course, pure speculation on my part.

          It is also true that Jesus went out of his way to tick off the religious leaders, thus ensuring his arrest.

  4. You are essentially declaring that all Christians are nazis, as all Christians believe that Christ is necessary for salvation, regardless of genetic ancestry.

    The fact that this dude is Jewish and believes in Jesus doesn’t change the basic foundation of Christianity.

    Also, messianic congregations are synagogues, lead by rabbis. They practice many of the basic Jewish traditions that don’t conflict with Christian beliefs. (Christianity is a Jewish religion, remember…started in Israel, worships a Jew.)

    To sum up, you’re really throwing around a large amount of ignorance and bigotry here. I can’t stand Pence. I don’t like that this guy made a political appearance about the antisemite attack. But by throwing down Godwin and suggesting he’s proliferating nazi antisemitism? Dude’s Jewish and saying the same thing all Christians believe. Nothing extreme.

    2. Point 1: All Christians?

      And I’m the one who’s ignorant?

      We know for a fact that it is less than half of all Christians, because the Catholic Church is more than half of them, and that church has said that Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems – and now even atheists, per the latest Pope – can go to heaven.

      Cool Pope Frank’s words: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! Even the atheists.”

      Point 2: “messianic congregations are led by rabbis.”

      Again. Incorrect. But this time you’re not just 50% wrong, it’s 100%. NO Christian congregations are led by rabbis. They are led by con men who CALL themselves rabbis, like the Pence pal. Anyone can call himself a rabbi. I also call myself a rabbi. But I am not one. Nor can I become one by going to Christian bible school.

      But, yeah, directly to your point, if you think nobody can be saved unless they believe what you believe (even though neither of you have a way to prove or disprove your beliefs), then that is a fundamental principle of Nazism. In fact, the inferiority of other people’s beliefs is the very essence of Nazism.

      HOWEVER …

      That does not mean that Pence and his ilk ARE Nazis, and I never said that. It just means that they share a very fundamental common belief with Nazis. They also disagree on other things. (Genocide being a very key one. The fact that converted Jews are acceptable being another.)

      And finally – the belief that Jews are doomed to hell unless they accept Jesus is absolutely, and unquestionably, anti-Semitism. (By definition. Anti-Semitism is “prejudice against Jews” and prejudice is “a preconceived non-provable notion.”) Of course these Christians are also against other religions as well, but the fact that they are anti-everything else does not exclude anti-Semitism. In fact, it includes it, again by definition.

      As I have pointed out before, the very basis of European society, in fact just about the only thing Europeans truly have in common, is anti-Semitism, which is just about built into Christianity’s old-time beliefs, and is still built into the beliefs of evangelicals and even many of the mainstream religions.

      As to your final point, yes, I am bigoted. I am bigoted against bigots. I plead 100% guilty to that.

      Finally. Do I believe that Christians (again not all but some) who believe they are the only ones who can be saved are Nazis? No. Do I believe that is a principle they have in common with Nazis? Yes. Do I believe that such a belief is an important fundamental principle of anti-Semitism? Yes. Do I believe that such a principle is, in and of itself, anti-Semitic. Yes, I think so. It is the belief that Jews are in some way inferior to Christians, and that definitely sounds like anti-Semitism to me, but that’s not equal to Nazism.

  5. Hmm.
    I always thought they were suggesting that folks “have a tequila”, which is also good advice. You are so learned; I yield to your superior wisdom.

Comments are closed.