Matthew 23:35

[ProDeo]

I don't pretend to understand why God does punish the generation of AD 70 for all the sins of all generations of Israel but it is what the OT teaches.

The opposite, every generation and every individual is punished for it's own sin. Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Lemme only comment on this - following Ezekiel 18:20, so why was Israel destroyed in AD70?

Maybe because of what Jesus said in Matt 23 is (was) true?

BTW, relying on your OT knowledge, is AD70 foretold in the OT?

[Fenris]

Lemme only comment on this - following Ezekiel 18:20, so why was Israel destroyed in AD70?

Why did the Holocaust happen? The Spanish Inquisition? The Chmielnicki massacres? The Crusades?

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

BTW, relying on your OT knowledge, is AD70 foretold in the OT?

Nope. And neither is any other tragedy after 586BCE.

Maybe because of what Jesus said in Matt 23 is (was) true?

I can't accept this because what he says in that chapter seems to be patently nonsense. Jews are blamed for events that happened thousands of years earlier, carried out by a non Jew, who also has no living descendants? It's neither a Jewish concept nor a just concept. Meanwhile, the Romans, who actually killed Jesus and murdered and enslaved millions of other Jews get off scot free?

[RabbiKnife]

Goths
Visigoths

Rome got its comeuppance

[ProDeo]

Lemme only comment on this - following Ezekiel 18:20, so why was Israel destroyed in AD70?

Why did the Holocaust happen? The Spanish Inquisition? The Chmielnicki massacres? The Crusades?

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

It strikes me as odd such a devastating event, the end of Israel, the destruction of the Temple, the beating heart of Judaism, is not foretold. In the Christian OT it is. Daniel 9

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Ingredients
1. Messiah cut off
2. Temple destruction
3. Determined total destruction.

Sounds like AD 70.

BTW, Daniel is mentioned and high spoken of 3 times in Ezekiel.

BTW, relying on your OT knowledge, is AD70 foretold in the OT?

Nope. And neither is any other tragedy after 586BCE.

Zachariah 14 -
3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward

Still needs to happen, as I am unaware this happened in the past.

Maybe because of what Jesus said in Matt 23 is (was) true?

I can't accept this because what he says in that chapter seems to be patently nonsense. Jews are blamed for events that happened thousands of years earlier, carried out by a non Jew, who also has no living descendants? It's neither a Jewish concept nor a just concept. Meanwhile, the Romans, who actually killed Jesus and murdered and enslaved millions of other Jews get off scot free?

Wasn't that predicted several times in the OT and happened for a reason?

Deuteronomy 28
62 Whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, you shall be left few in number, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God.

Holocaust?

63 And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

God is not talking about individuals but addressing Israel as a nation, thus including the many innocents.
 
64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

Happened exactly as foretold in AD 70, go to about whatever country, you always will find a couple of synagogues. Unprecedented in history.
 
65 And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul. 66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life. 67 In the morning you shall say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you shall say, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread that your heart shall feel, and the sights that your eyes shall see.

It's what about 1900+ years of history learned us, the Jew hatred, still present upon this day, all came true and AD 70 became a starting point for v65-v67 with as absolute low point the Holocaust.

68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”

As you said yourself, millions Jews enslaved. Josephus mentions one million deaths when Jerusalem was taken. A blood bath.

Everything fits and written down at least 2500 years ago. And it's not about Ezekiel 18:20 which speaks about the sins of an individual but Deuteronomy 28, Daniel 9 and other places in the OT judgement is spoken over Israel as a nation.

Likewise God ordered genocide of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, addressing them as a nation, including innocent children.

---

In the hope you don't take these kind of things personal.

[Sojourner]

Matthew 23 is basically one long tirade against the Pharisees. OK, I get that. Jesus doesn't like them. (Whether his description of them is historical is another matter, perhaps for another discussion.) Most of the chapter seems very over the top, he seems to be in quite the foul mood, but verse 35 is startling even in this context.

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel...

He's blaming every murder in history on the Pharisees?! Going all the way back to Abel? Jews didn't even exist back then, we don't meet the first Jew (Abraham) until Genesis 11.

Where's the gentle "turn the other cheek" Jesus?

Jesus didn't accuse the scribes and pharisees of personally killing anyone. He said the shedding of all innocent blood, from Abel to Zechariah, would be laid to the charge of that generation, which is the one that experienced the horrors of the Roman siege. The parallel text in Luke 11:53 makes it clear Jesus was not accusing the scribes and pharisees as individuals:

"As a result, this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, all of it will be charged to this generation. (Luke 11:47-53 BSB)

Jesus is referring to that blood guilt in the context of the impending judgment that would befall the Jews at the hands of Rome. The true catalyst of this judgment was the failure of the Jews to recognize Jesus as the instrument of God's salvation they had awaited for so long:

As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it and said, “If only you had known on this day what would bring you peace! But now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will barricade you and surround you and hem you in on every side. They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God. (Luke 19:41-44) 

[Fenris]

Goths
Visigoths

Rome got its comeuppance

But of this, Jesus has nothing to say. He saves his tirades for the Jews.

[Fenris]

It strikes me as odd such a devastating event, the end of Israel,

Israel didn't end. We're still around, in case you hadn't noticed.

the destruction of the Temple, the beating heart of Judaism, is not foretold.

Why should it be foretold? The age ofprophecy had long passed.

In the Christian OT it is. Daniel 9
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:   

This is a terrible translation. The Hebrew says "an anointed" (as every king was, even Gentile kings like Cyrus was called in "God's anointed" Is 45:1) not "the messiah". And not "But not for himself". The Hebrew simply means "and be no more".

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This is probably referring to the Chanukah story. Many historians including Jewish ones have questions about the date of the book of Daniel.

Zachariah 14 -
3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward

Still needs to happen, as I am unaware this happened in the past.

I didn't say that no prophecies remained unfulfilled. You asked about the year 70 and I answered that the specific tragedies were not  delineated in the bible.

Wasn't that predicted several times in the OT and happened for a reason?

The warning is about the sins that those individuals my commit, not every injustice that happened in the world, dating back to creation, which is ridiculous.

[Fenris]

Jesus didn't accuse the scribes and pharisees of personally killing anyone. He said the shedding of all innocent blood, from Abel to Zechariah, would be laid to the charge of that generation,

Which doesn't make any sense. Why should any generation carry the guilt of every murder in history?

"As a result, this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, all of it will be charged to this generation. (Luke 11:47-53 BSB)

This is not justice. This is not Jewish.

Jesus is referring to that blood guilt in the context of the impending judgment that would befall the Jews at the hands of Rome. The true catalyst of this judgment was the failure of the Jews to recognize Jesus as the instrument of God's salvation they had awaited for so long:

In other words, their sin is not murder, it's rejection of Jesus.

Now it makes sense. Of course he's angry at them.

You know, too much is made of this whole "crime" of the Jews rejecting prophets. Yes, many Jews rejected prophets at the time. But you know what else they did to the prophets? They took their words, their harshest critics, and canonized them. They made them holy. No other ancient people (or modern, that I can think of) has ever done such a thing. We still read them to this day.

[Sojourner]

Jesus didn't accuse the scribes and pharisees of personally killing anyone. He said the shedding of all innocent blood, from Abel to Zechariah, would be laid to the charge of that generation,

Which doesn't make any sense. Why should any generation carry the guilt of every murder in history?

The generation that rejected their messiah was held accountable. It's all a matter of perspective, fenris. When the messiah was rejected, the blood of God's Lamb counted an unholy thing, Israel was called into account for the full debt in the ledger, including the murder of God's servants. That's why Jesus, speaking of the coming judgment, said the house of Israel would be liable for not just the blood of the prophets who were slain, but all righteous blood, from Abel, the first martyr named in the Torah, to Zechariah, the last. But I don't expect you to see it, let alone make sense of it. Perspective.

You see a man falsely claiming to be the messiah, resentful and verbally abusive when He is rejected. I see Isaiah's suffering servant sent to be the divinely appointed sacrifice--prefigured for thousands of years as the Passover lamb--castigating religious leadership for its failings. You see a failed messianic claimant summarily executed as a criminal. I see the Savior paying a price He didn't owe because it was a price we couldn't pay, and rising from the dead 3 days later to return one day and rule as God's anointed king. Time will tell who is right.

Jesus is referring to that blood guilt in the context of the impending judgment that would befall the Jews at the hands of Rome. The true catalyst of this judgment was the failure of the Jews to recognize Jesus as the instrument of God's salvation they had awaited for so long:

In other words, their sin is not murder, it's rejection of Jesus.

Yes, as a matter of fact. But the one they rejected was sent by God. And they paid a heavy price for it.

Now it makes sense. Of course he's angry at them.

You know, too much is made of this whole "crime" of the Jews rejecting prophets. Yes, many Jews rejected prophets at the time. But you know what else they did to the prophets? They took their words, their harshest critics, and canonized them. They made them holy. No other ancient people (or modern, that I can think of) has ever done such a thing. We still read them to this day.

Well, they also killed some of them. They didn't like the message, so they killed the messenger. There are frequent references in the NT regarding the Jews killing the prophets, which you naturally discount. But I expect you will accept corroboration from the Tanakh. While I'm unaware of the actual deaths of any prophets being documented in the OT, there are several passages that clearly reference Israel's liability for their murders, including these:

Why do you contend with Me? You have all transgressed against Me,” declares the Lord. 30 “In vain I have struck your sons; They accepted no chastening. Your sword has devoured your prophets Like a destroying lion. (Jeremiah 2:29-30)

But they were disobedient and rebelled against You; they flung Your law behind their backs. They killed Your prophets, who had admonished them to return to You. They committed terrible blasphemies. (Neh 9:26)

And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. (1 Kings 19:10,14)

You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. (2 Kings 9:7)

[Fenris]

They didn't like the message

Again, as I said, the message was canonized. If Jews were as bad as you're making out, there would be no bible left. Or only the nice parts. But it's all here, which says something about the people who took its message to heart.

There are frequent references in the NT regarding the Jews killing the prophets, which you naturally discount. But I expect you will accept corroboration from the Tanakh. While I'm unaware of the actual deaths of any prophets being documented in the OT

Because there really aren't any.

there are several passages that clearly reference Israel's liability for their murders, including these:

Why do you contend with Me? You have all transgressed against Me,” declares the Lord. 30 “In vain I have struck your sons; They accepted no chastening. Your sword has devoured your prophets Like a destroying lion. (Jeremiah 2:29-30)

If you're going to accept the chastisement, you also have to accept the kind words. Same chapter:

“‘I remember the devotion of your youth,
    how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the wilderness,
    through a land not sown.
 Israel was holy to the Lord,
    the firstfruits of his harvest;
all who devoured her were held guilty,
    and disaster overtook them,’”
declares the Lord.

But they were disobedient and rebelled against You; they flung Your law behind their backs. They killed Your prophets, who had admonished them to return to You. They committed terrible blasphemies. (Neh 9:26)

Again, none of this lays the blame of events that occurred before Sinai, (Abel *cough*) and none of it says that any one generation is responsible for anything that the generation itself did not do.

And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. (1 Kings 19:10,14)

It's funny that you cite this one, because what happens after Elijah says this? Verse 16: "...and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet." Elijah was punished for what he said. His mission was revoked. He was to anoint a successor.

You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. (2 Kings 9:7)

All of Israel is not guilty for Jezebel's crimes. Jezebel isn't even Jewish.

[Sojourner]

It wasn't my intent to denigrate Israel. I think the Jews are some of the smartest, most remarkable and resilient people that ever lived. And I'm well aware there would be no Bible without them. Heck, there would be no Christian faith without them. (Ironic, huh?) All I did was supply a few passages in an attempt to to demonstrate allegations made by Jesus in His rant are not totally without merit.

You started this thread bewildered by Jesus' unrestrained vitriol against the scribes and pharisees. Jesus was indeed critical of them throughout His ministry, regularly calling out their hubris, self-righteousness and hypocrisy. He was critical of the manner in which they focused on ritual and the letter of the law, even while neglecting the essence of the the law, such as justice, mercy and faithfulness. He criticized the way they marginalized these more important aspects of the law even while promoting man-made traditions the people were expected to observe as if originally part of the law. Truth is, the glaring character flaws of the religious leaders was pretty much all that got Jesus riled up. And He wasn't one to mince words.

This particular occasion He was especially harsh. Maybe knowing the resurrection of Lazarus was going to initiate the events leading to His betrayal, arrest and agonizing death weighed heavily on Him that day. I can see how that sort of thing could make a guy a little edgy.

[Fenris]

It wasn't my intent to denigrate Israel.

I never thought that it was. I clearly perceive that the philosophy of Christians that think as this group does is a rarity in history, because it is Philosemitic. 

I think the Jews are some of the smartest, most remarkable and resilient people that ever lived. And I'm well aware there would be no Bible without them. Heck, there would be no Christian faith without them. (Ironic, huh?)

Not ironic. Logical. And this logic leads me to conclude that we share the same mission, in the end. Nevertheless...

All I did was supply a few passages in an attempt to to demonstrate allegations made by Jesus in His rant are not totally without merit.

It also wasn't classically "Jewish". This idea of generational guilt, or racial guilt, does not have a place in Judaism. "The soul that sins will die" and all that. Jews don't blame present day Germans for the Holocaust, or modern day Romans for the destruction of Jerusalem.

You started this thread bewildered by Jesus' unrestrained vitriol against the scribes and pharisees. Jesus was indeed critical of them throughout His ministry, regularly calling out their hubris, self righteousness and hypocrisy.

What's also interesting is that he levels both barrels, as it were, at the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the party of the working class. They were known to be kindly and treat others well. They were known to stand up against oppressors. Their beliefs were ones we would understand, in the afterlife, in divine reward and punishment, in interpreting the law in a kind and charitable way. We know this from secular sources like Josephus and also from the Mishna and the Talmud.

Jesus has no words for the Saducees, who were by and large a worse lot. They were the upper class, with all the bad stereotypes being true. They were Roman toadies, who actually bought the office of High Priest by bribing the Romans. They were nasty and rude to each other, let alone commoners. They did not believe in an afterlife. They interpreted the bible without any oral law and in the harshest way. And yet Jesus has not a peep to say about them. Which is historically very peculiar and (in my mind at least) calls many things into question.

He was critical of the manner in which they focused on ritual and the letter of the law, even while neglecting the essence of the the law, such as justice, mercy and faithfulness.

He is more accurately describing the Saducees.

Truth is, the glaring character flaws of the religious leaders was pretty much all that got Jesus riled up.

And because he didn't like their character traits he lays blame on them for murders going back to the beginning of history? Where's the Christian kindness and love and forgiveness? Does he know that Jews will be murdered by his followers, millennia later, over these words?

I can see how that sort of thing could make a guy a little edgy.

But he isn't "a guy", is he? He's the son of God and therefore perfect. No?

[Sojourner]

It wasn't my intent to denigrate Israel.

I never thought that it was. I clearly perceive that the philosophy of Christians that think as this group does is a rarity in history, because it is Philosemitic.

Most Christians are very pro-Israel. While a lot of Jews would disagree, we do serve the same God of Creation. It's mainly His Son we differ on.... 

I think the Jews are some of the smartest, most remarkable and resilient people that ever lived. And I'm well aware there would be no Bible without them. Heck, there would be no Christian faith without them. (Ironic, huh?)

Not ironic. Logical. And this logic leads me to conclude that we share the same mission, in the end. Nevertheless...

Christianity, despite the rocky beginnings, is firmly based on a Judaic foundation. First century Jews saw first century Christians as a cult, but fortunately an encounter with the resurrected Jesus transformed a Pharisee from an enemy of the church to its most tireless evangelist. If people looked for what they have in common instead of fixating on their differences, there would be far less division and animosity in the world.

All I did was supply a few passages in an attempt to to demonstrate allegations made by Jesus in His rant are not totally without merit.

It also wasn't classically "Jewish". This idea of generational guilt, or racial guilt, does not have a place in Judaism. "The soul that sins will die" and all that. Jews don't blame present day Germans for the Holocaust, or modern day Romans for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jews have a different perspective of sin and punishment than Christians. I mean you guys don't get the whole vicarious suffering and atonement espoused by Christianity. You count on good works to be right with God, while we see them as expected but not central to salvation. I think unrepentant sin accumulates and multiplies (Isaiah 59:12; Ezra 9:6), and perhaps Jesus was extrapolating.   

You started this thread bewildered by Jesus' unrestrained vitriol against the scribes and pharisees. Jesus was indeed critical of them throughout His ministry, regularly calling out their hubris, self righteousness and hypocrisy.

What's also interesting is that he levels both barrels, as it were, at the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the party of the working class. They were known to be kindly and treat others well. They were known to stand up against oppressors. Their beliefs were ones we would understand, in the afterlife, in divine reward and punishment, in interpreting the law in a kind and charitable way. We know this from secular sources like Josephus and also from the Mishna and the Talmud.

I don't know fenris. It seems out of character for the compassionate, meek, gentle healer to erupt into a senseless angry tirade against morally upright, benevolent individuals for no particular reason. I can only surmise He saw something we're missing 2000 years removed from the incident. Besides if someone sees the truth in harsh criticism, it could lead to constructive edification and enlightenment. Or not...

Jesus has no words for the Saducees, who were by and large a worse lot. They were the upper class, with all the bad stereotypes being true. They were Roman toadies, who actually bought the office of High Priest by bribing the Romans. They were nasty and rude to each other, let alone commoners. They did not believe in an afterlife. They interpreted the bible without any oral law and in the harshest way. And yet Jesus has not a peep to say about them. Which is historically very peculiar and (in my mind at least) calls many things into question.

Maybe Jesus wrote the Sadducees off as a lost cause and didn't waste His breath. Maybe He expected more from the Pharisees?

He was critical of the manner in which they focused on ritual and the letter of the law, even while neglecting the essence of the the law, such as justice, mercy and faithfulness.

He is more accurately describing the Saducees.

See above.

Truth is, the glaring character flaws of the religious leaders was pretty much all that got Jesus riled up.

And because he didn't like their character traits he lays blame on them for murders going back to the beginning of history? Where's the Christian kindness and love and forgiveness? Does he know that Jews will be murdered by his followers, millennia later, over these words?

Listening to the words of the zealots and bar kokhba when they thought revolt was a good idea probably got far more Jews killed than the words of Jesus. I don't think it's fair to blame the extermination of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany on Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees. He despised Jews and would done what he did if Jesus never existed.

I can see how that sort of thing could make a guy a little edgy.

But he isn't "a guy", is he? He's the son of God and therefore perfect. No?

Jesus was the ideal man, but a man nevertheless. He was divine because the Spirit of God indwelt Him from conception, but was as frail and human as we are. He grew angry, wept, got tired, hungry and thirsty just like us. In the garden before His arrest, He was so stressed about what was coming He experienced hematidrosis. He asked God for a way around it if possible, yet accepted His fate. I can't even imagine the weight He was carrying. It's not a coincidence that a man in a garden brought sin into the world by opposing his will against God's, while sin was dealt with by a man in a garden who submitted His will to God, even though it meant agony.

[Fenris]

Most Christians are very pro-Israel.

Most American Christians, perhaps. Catholics and Europeans not so much. Anyway.

but fortunately an encounter with the resurrected Jesus transformed a Pharisee from an enemy of the church to its most tireless evangelist

Whether Paul was actually a Pharisee is an interesting question.

Jews have a different perspective of sin and punishment than Christians.

Yes. Yes we do.

I don't know fenris. It seems out of character for the compassionate, meek, gentle healer to erupt into a senseless angry tirade against morally upright, benevolent individuals for no particular reason.

Oh, he had a great reason. Their rejection of his claims.

The picture the NT paints of Pharisees does not square with what we know about them. Certainly, they were noticeably better than other Jewish sects, let alone pagan gentiles of the time.

Maybe Jesus wrote the Sadducees off as a lost cause and didn't waste His breath. Maybe He expected more from the Pharisees?

Perhaps. Still a little too much invective for my tastes. Laying blame them for every murder going back to Abel?

Listening to the words of the zealots and bar kokhba when they thought revolt was a good idea probably got far more Jews killed than the words of Jesus.

Yes, the Zealot revolt was most unwise. That doesn't expunge the harm that the words of the NT had on Jews through the centuries.

I don't think it's fair to blame the extermination of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany on Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees.

I don't place direct blame. On the other hand, the people who carried it out were at least nominally Christian and lived on a Christian continent where Jews were persecuted for as long as they lived there.

Jesus was the ideal man, but a man nevertheless. He was divine because the Spirit of God indwelt Him from conception, but was as frail and human as we are. He grew angry, wept, got tired, hungry and thirsty just like us. In the garden before His arrest, He was so stressed about what was coming He experienced hematidrosis.

I guess this is just one of those Christian things I'll never be able to understand.

[Sojourner]

Yes, the Zealot revolt was most unwise. That doesn't expunge the harm that the words of the NT had on Jews through the centuries.

Words can bring about good or bad, inspiring or inciting people, depending who the speaker is, and what is said. But I agree that a great number of people of an antisemitic mentality have used the the negative image of Jews portrayed in the NT as justification for their malevolent actions.

Jesus was the ideal man, but a man nevertheless. He was divine because the Spirit of God indwelt Him from conception, but was as frail and human as we are. He grew angry, wept, got tired, hungry and thirsty just like us. In the garden before His arrest, He was so stressed about what was coming He experienced hematidrosis.

I guess this is just one of those Christian things I'll never be able to understand.

Perfectly understandable. Even the Apostle Paul described God being manifest in the flesh as a great mystery. (1 Ti 3:16) Fenris, you believe God appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and even ate the food he prepared for Him, right? If God can temporarily manifest Himself as a man and eat solid food, there is short trip from there to God manifesting Himself as a man in a permanent incarnation. That's who Jesus is.