Israel had twins, their names were Christianity and Islam...

...perhaps not in the sense that we normally think; they were born 600 years apart. The elder twin, Christianity wasn't called by that name at first. It was the local street urchins and the bullies who began calling him that as a taunt. They kept it up for so long that soon he was calling himself that, and the name stuck.

At first, Christianity took after his mother, which meant he reflected the two divine attributes, Justice and Mercy -- also known as Holiness and Love. In fact, he reflected them so well that the mother became jealous, and he began to find it difficult to live in the same house with her. This was also due to the fact that Israel's husband had called, dressed as a beggar; and she, failing to recognise Him, had turned him away. However the son had recognised him, and they stayed in communication. He promised the child that one day, they would all be reunited.
As time went on, the son could no longer stand to live in the same house as his mother, and left home. About that time, the house was seized and the mother also had to leave. They became a broken family.

Cut off from his mother's influence, Christianity began to emphasise the divine attribute of Love and Mercy, neglecting that of Justice and Holiness -- receiving only the new and rejecting the old. He also began to emulate the neighbourhood boys in other ways, and was soon unrecognisable as the son of his mother.

This was truly sad, as the child had been destined to reign as a prince alongside his mother, a queen, and his father, King Messiah. This would bring perfect balance to the universe, however it couldn't happen, because the child who was to be prince was away from home, and his character was becoming increasingly unbalanced. Even as it was, the mantel of “Prince of the Universe” was still on the child, and as such, his imbalance also affected the universe.

What happened next was not the original plan of Him who was to reign as King, but it was as though nature were correcting the imbalance. He allowed it to happen, knowing that it would bring about his purpose in the end, and in the mean time, there would be a semblance of balance in the universe. So, because of the imbalance in the cosmos, a twin was born. Just as the older twin was the son of Abraham through faith, the younger was also a son, through Ishmael. That twin's name was Islam.

Everything that the elder twin rejected, the younger twin embraced. The elder child had clung to mercy at the expense of justice, so the younger twin clung to justice, but rejected mercy. The elder twin had become careless in describing the Holy Trinity, giving the impression that he believed in three gods instead of One God manifested as three persons. The younger twin responded with, “That's polytheism! There is only one God,” and rejected the Trinity. The elder child had begun to describe the doctrine of the Incarnation and Virgin Birth in a pagan sort of way, as though God had intimate relations with Mary to give birth to Messiah, thus His title, the “Son of God”. The younger brother was repulsed by this idea, and retorted, “No! God cannot have children!”

Never-the-less, the younger twin did believe in the Messiah, even acknowledging that He was the Word of God, not realising that that's what the term, “Son of God” really meant in the first place. But he didn't believe in the crucifixion and the resurrection, because those were the ultimate expressions of Mercy. In essence, he had rejected Mercy because his elder brother had so distorted it by divorcing it from Justice. However, his own understanding of Justice was likewise distorted.

It was truly a broken family, and all nature wept. The mother, having fled from her home and living wherever she could, was tormented and persecuted by both of her children – when they weren't too busy fighting each other.

Then, one day the first child had an awakening. He began to realise what a horrible son he had been, and began, by degrees, returning to his mother. The mother's heart also began to open to her son. The son asked her, “Please, remind me of the truths I've neglected this past 2000 years, like Justice the Fear of the Lord.”

As the mother began to open up to her child, her eyes also opened to King Messiah, whom she had once turned away from her door when he came dressed as a beggar. He had been communicating with the elder twin from a distance all along, but the child had not been very good at remembering all that he told him, and didn't know how to mix the new with the old. But now that the King was revealing Himself more directly, the elder son also began to think more clearly and understand the will of the King, and the divine attributes of Justice and Mercy.

Another thing began to happen: the more the older child embraced the more balanced view, his twin began to fade away as his soul began to merge with that of his older brother. Soon, they were no longer two separate twins, but one child. Only a shell of the younger twin's body remained, sort of like a zombie that continued to put up a fight until it disintegrated. There were also other zombies, clones of the mother and elder child that had spawned when the reunion came. For a short time, all the zombies joined forces in an attempt to devour the Queen and the Prince, trying to bring about a zombie apocalypse. That was short-lived, and soon total harmony was restored in the universe as King Messiah reigned with the Queen and the Prince for the rest of eternity.

Image: By William Fraser [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Jesus, Before He Became a Gentile

A very good, concise treatise on the Jewishness of Jesus/Yeshua on Gene Shlomovich's blog -- actually an excerpt from the book, Does God Play Favourites? by Jim Gerrish, readable online.

Israel, What Are Christians to Think?

Some good sound opinions at Derek Leman's website on the current uproar regarding Israel. On one side are the Christian Zionists, who would shout "Yeah Israel" no matter what they did, for good or for bad; on the other, those who won't ever give Israel the benefit of the doubt about anything, and even begrudge them the right to exist as a state.

Here's what Derek has to say:

Let me suggest a Jewish view, a biblical view of the situation:

1. Israel is the people elected freely and irrevocably by God, whose destiny and purpose serve as the forefront of God’s plan of world redemption.
2. Israel’s relationship with God is one of unconditional love and favor, but its temporal fortunes are tied to the covenant relationship through Torah.
3. The state of Israel is a secular government with little regard for Torah, which is obligated to follow the divine commandments and is not, and which is not guaranteed peace or success in any generation until there is renewal.

Read here for more...

Jewish Prophecy

For the last six or seven years, I've been on the list of a Yahoo Group called JewishClubMaoz@yahoogroups.com . I'm not sure how I got the invitation to join, but I got it and I did. Many on the list appear to be Zionist radicals of the non Messianic sort -- a few of them, militant. Now and then I've found a gem. I believe I've found one just now. It would be easy, of course, to take the following the wrong way, but I believe there's something there.

This is not the usual sort of thing that a nice Christian boy like me would post on a blog, but here goes:

Prophecy

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Many Jews talk about the need to make Israel an authentic Jewish state, and of course they know what is an authentic Jewish state. It's a state based on the Torah, on the Sinai Covenant. It's a state whose ultimate purpose is to sanctify the Name of God by revealing His infinite Wisdom, Power and Graciousness in every domain of existence.

But if we understand what an authentic Jewish state is, why don’t we have a road map to such state? The basic reason is because we have focused our attention and energies on the “Arab problem,” more precisely the “Palestinian problem.” This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only is entire world is focused on the Palestinian problem, but Israel's Government is committed to the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state on Israel's own territory! Let's try to get to the bottom of this bizarre situation.

(1) Israeli governments have focused the world’s attention on the Palestinian problem because these foolish governments have failed to address Israel's most fundamental problem the Jewish problem!

(2) Stated another way, every Israeli government has been focused on the territorial-

cum-security issue. So lo and behold, Israel is losing territory and has never been more insecure!

Want more? Okay.

(3) Israel’s (paranoid) prime ministers are always preoccupied with Israel’s image in the media or among the nations. This is precisely why Israel has never had a more horrible image among the nations.

Are you getting the message? You all know that the Zionist enterprise had two basic goals: to provide for the security and restore the dignity of the Jewish people by establishing a Jewish state in Eretz Israel. Right?

But where was God in this scenario? Do you find God mentioned in Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State—Herzl, the only name mentioned in the document now called Israel’s Declaration of Independence?

So, instead of God, what does Israel look up to—because if a people have nothing to look up to, it’s on the way to looking down on its feet. Instead of looking up to God it will look up to man. It’s called "humanism." But inasmuch as biologists such as Richard Dawkins have shown that man is descended from the apes, an awful lot of Israelis have discovered that Israel has no statesman at the helm—just apes!

Let me put it another way. What do Israel’s decision-makers and opinion-makers exalt? But of course—DEMOCRACY! Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that the paramount concern of Israel’s ruling elites—politicians and judges, academics and journalists—is to secure Israel’s reputation as a Democracy. This is what gives Israel's government Legitimacy and Israel's elites with Respectability. Right? But notice that the nations are now seeking to delegitimize Israel despite its vaunted democracy! Sort of ironic, no?

But where is the Torah in this Israeli scenario? Wasn’t it the Torah that preserved the Jewish people and endowed them with personal and national dignity?

Will someone tell me what would have happened to the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple without the Torah? Why they would have become as extinct as the dodo. Which means that had Israel been led by the likes of Yitzhak Rabin (read Shimon Peres), Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Binyamin Netanyahu—and let's add that "everything-is-justiciable" jurisprudent Aharon Barak—the Jews would have suffered the fate of the Neanderthals.

Poor Israel! Having abandoned the God of Israel and the Torah, various leaders of the so-called Jewish state are so desperate that they solicit the political support of Christians! Christians may think this is the fulfillment of prophecy.

But the Jewish sages knew that in the end of days, Israel would be ruled by paltry governments. That's where Israel is today. Like the foolish governments of Europe and the United States, they are succumbing to Allah and the Quran—to barbarians. But don't despair. The Jewish sages saw the current state of affairs as a preliminary to a renaissance of Hebraic civilization.

Tribalism

Here are some gems of wisdom from the Chabad website's "Ask The Rabbi", Tzvi Freeman. Read the whole article and you'll gain a better understanding of Jewish reasons for Torah Observance, as well as some insight into aspects of sociology. This is a must-read for missiologists, emergents, anyone who wonders about the importance of culture ...

Here is but a small quote...

Sociology became a science with the publication Emile Durkheim's monograph on suicide in 1897. Durkheim was a nice Jewish boy who had studied in yeshiva to become a rabbi, as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before him, but then left to think for himself and challenge his teachers at the Sorbonne. In his paper, Durkheim blamed most of society's woes (especially suicide) on the abandonment of tribalism. He coined the term anomie, which means a state of society where nobody knows who they are, what they have to do with one another or what on earth they're doing here. Durkheim demonstrated, through the first methodological, scientific study of a social phenomenon, that in turn-of-the-century France, suicide was the realm of the tribeless—meaning the Protestant and the agnostic. Catholics and Jews rarely committed suicide. Because they felt no anomie.

What this runaway-yeshiva boy ironically demonstrated, and others after him confirmed is that a human being without a tribe is like a polar bear without ice—he can survive, but he'll be awfully confused. It's through his relationship with the tribe that a human being knows that the earth beneath his feet is solid ground, that tomorrow is a day like today, that he is who he is and it's okay to be that way. Take the tribe away and none of that remains necessarily true.

There's a lot more. Read it for yourself...

How to be Humble without being a Wimp

Here's a good definition of humility from the Chavad people...

It's the sense of, "Yes I know who I am, what I can do and what I can't. But I stand in the presence of something much larger than my little self, so much larger that there isn't any room left for any vestige of my own ego. Something before which a thousand universes are less than dust and from which all things extend. Something which is infinite, transcendent and yet pervades all things."

Eetoo - the rough draft

I've completed the rough draft. At the moment, my two most faithful readers are reading it, my dad and my aunt.

It' s cross genre science fiction (space opera) / historical fiction. Has anyone ever heard of that?

I suppose one could cite various stories about time travel, perhaps a few episodes of Dr. Who, or Star Treck, or one T.V. program I saw once in which the characters specialised in going to various points of history and made sure things happened the way they should; i.e. that Sparticus started his revolution, etc. as though these things wouldn't have happened without help. Of course, everyone they met throughout history spoke English with an American Midwest accent.

Eetoo isn't about time travel, though. The whole story takes place in the first century, where humans have been living since the (fictitious) Nephteshi empire (predating the rise of Egypt) removed itself to a new planet using a technology that enabled space travel and exploration.

In the story, Eetoo and a friend find their way to Earth at time that's pivital for both Earth's and galactic human history. He doesn't altar the course of Earth's history (as many a sci fi author has done), but what he finds affects the course of humanity living in space.

First century Jewish and Christian history is something has been a pet subject for study of for 16 years now, since I started writing my first (as yet unpublished) novel, The Emissary. I think I sufficiently understand all the factors affecting the times, the Messianic expectation, the various groups like the Pharisees (Beit Hillel, Beit Shammai, etc), the state of the High Priestly system, the Essenes, the intense hardships cause Roman imperialism and local corruption etc. to make it a real to life story. It owes a lot to what's called "Jesus Study".

Also, I've poured in my understanding of culture and linguistics, some from study and some from experience. Eetoo's culture is partly based on Karen (an tribal group stradling the Thai Myanmar border). There are other cultures there as well. I think I've portrayed all the cultures so there won't be such a clash between those living in space and the Greco/Jewish culture of Palistine and Egypt.

I might be tempted later to post a future draft on my website for a limited time.

lost tribes...?

I realise that when one drops the phrase, "lost tribes", it conjours up any one of a number of images, such as British Israelism, or it's more recent variation that seems to have hit some Messianic groups, the "Two Houses" idea. That is the belief that every European believer in Yeshua is potentially descended from Israelites who became thoroughly assimilated into European society.

I won't comment further on that theory, except to say that unless someone shows me some geneological records I was hitherto unaware of (which would delight me no end) I will remain what God made me: Irish. Also, the theories assume that the Northern tribes were not only lost (which some question), but also thoroughly assimilated into their adoptive cultures.

There is, however, evidence that they were neither lost nor assimilated... or maybe lost as far as Western popular history, but as the little boy found wandering about the shopping mall said, "I'm not lost, my parents are." (In the same way, we could say Columbus didn't discover America. The Native Americans knew about it all along.)

What follows is not a Christian/Messianic fad. It's something that many Orthodox rabbis in Israel are taking seriously (although opinion is a bit devided). All of my sources come from rabbinical sources, such as Moshiach Online, and the book: Across the Sabbath River: In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel .
You can also do a Google advance search, entering the string "Lost Tribes" and either "Bnai Menashe" or "Pathan" to find much much more.

The Moshiach Online website has information on about a dozon groups, including the Pathan, who make up a major part of the population of Afghanistan, Kashmeris, and a group called Bnai Menashe, a group of people from the Mizo/Chin tribe of India and Burma.

If you look up these links and take it all in, there's actually very little that I could add to them, except to say that this probably represents a wide open opportunity for Messianics who are considering following the will of Adonai, to consider if it may mean relocating to a different part of the world, such as, say, Afghanistan, India or S.E. Asia.

This has been a very exciting discovery for me, as I happen to know a number of people of the Chin/Mizo tribe in Burma. They were evangelised some 100 years ago, and the tribe is about 95% Christian, at least nominally, but a great percent are Evangelical, with many Pentecostals and Charismatics. A relatively small group of them, numbering several thousand living on the Indian side of the border (where they are caled "Mizos") have concluded that they are, in fact, of the tribe of Menashe. What is surprising is there are rabbis who, after examining their culture and what they remember of their history, believe them.

As for the rest of the tribe, on both sides of the border, they are still 95% Christian. Unfortunately, those who originally took the Gospel to them, besides having no idea that these could be the tribe of Menashe (and would have probably resisted acknowledging the idea anyway), put very little emphesis on Old Testament foundational knowledge. It's easy to see how many of them, having only a minimal New Testament foundation to begin with, having become nominal after a few generations, could be influenced by something with more depth such as Rabbinical Judaism. They have, in effect, exchanged a religion that lost its foundation, for the foundation itself, but without the building that it was intended for.

I believe this represents a ministry opportunity for the Messianic movement -- if not to the Bnai Menashe who have already adopted Judaism, at least to the rest, who need their understanding of their faith deepened, both so as to know how to respond to the Bnai Menashe movement, but more importantly, to know how to respond to their calling as Israelites, if that is indeed what they are. If not, at least they could use a better foundation for their faith.

The Pathan and Kashmeris are followers of Islam, but still hold Israeli traditions that are even more obvious than those of the Bnai Menashe. There are both customs and place names that are readily recognisable from the Bible, but not inherited from Islam. Even British colonists and others in history have noted the fact. In light of that, it amazes me no end, how the idea still clung on, that the 10 Northern tribes are lost and, of all things, British! The Moshiach Online website also gives other examples of cultures far and wide that could have Israelite connections.

The challange of course is obvious, but I do believe that Messianic Judaism, mixed with a bit of cross cultural adaptation and wisdom, is in the best possition to take it up. Our mandate may be bigger than we had thought. It's still about sharing Ha Mochiach with the Jewish community, and helping the Christian community find their Jewish roots, but now it's not just on a local level. Each one should pray about what it means for him/herself.

If you begin to have the feeling that there's not much more that can be said and done in your own community that the locals (both Jewish and Christian) haven't seen and heard already, maybe it's time to move on. If we truly believe we have a mandate, and that we are approaching the end times when Israel will be gathered to her home, it's something we need to take seriously.

It's not an easy decision in every case, just as it wasn't for Avraham when G-d told him to leave his country. It also doesn't pay to be rash, but for sure, take it seriously and seek G-d about it, and talk about it with the believers in your fellowship.

Then, prepare.

Why did G-d create the world?

From Rabbi David Fohrman, Jewish World Review

It's not just an idle, philosophical question. From a religious standpoint, this innocent, child-like query packs a big theological wallop. For if G-d is a perfect Being, a being who has no needs, then why would He bother creating a universe? What could a universe possibly give to a Being who doesn't need anything at all?

In the beginning of the 18^th century, a Jewish thinker by the name of Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzatto proposed what has become a classic answer to this dilemma. His answer is deceptively simple. Luzzatto says that G-d created the world in order to be capable of love.

The words seem like a cliché, sort of like the "G-d is Love" bumper sticker you might see plastered to the back of someone's rusting VW Beatle; but rest assured that Luzzatto lived long before the beatniks, and he meant what he said seriously. His argument goes as follows:

One of the axioms that most religions, Judaism included, accepts about G-d is that He is good. But those are just words. What does it actually mean to be good? One of the things it means, Luzzatto says, is that one acts to benefit others. If there is no world, though, then there are no others that G-d can benefit; He exists alone in numinous solitude. G-d acted to create a world so that there would be other beings existing besides Himself, beings upon whom He could bestow goodness.

In short, G-d created the world because goodness demanded it. more...

Terrorism -- the spirit of Amalek

From an article entitled Terrorism By Sara Esther Crispe, in Chabad.org Magazine:

The negative force of terror has been with us since the dawn of human history. The names and faces and national identities of the terrorists change from place to place and from era to era, but the primordial force that drives them has a single name. It is Amalek.

The Torah teaches us that, "G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations" (Exodus 17:16). "In every generation," say our Sages, "Amalek rises to destroy us, and each time he clothes himself in a different nation," (Me'am Loez; Devarim vol.3 p. 977).

Our first encounter was long ago. Since that time, there have been many others. Yet our mission and commandment remains the same:

"Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G-d. Therefore... you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget." (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) ... more

News Flash

Report: Number of Jews in Israel to surpass U.S. Jewish population in 2006

...and I had always thought there were more Jewish people in New York alone! Shows how behind I am!

Does the New Testament call Jews "Christ Killers"?

A question that has come to the surface as the result of the recent release of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, has been boldly printed on the cover of Newsweek: "Who Really Killed Christ"? The question being asked in this context is, does The Passion support the age old label of the Jews being "Christ Killers?" The fact that it's being asked by many who haven't even seen the film, on hearing that it is rigidly true to the New Testament account, begs the question, is the New Testament, in and of itself seen as anti-Semitic and therefore politically incorrect?
While I've read a number of reviews, I couldn't give a first hand opinion as to the film itself, as I haven't seen it yet. Therefore, I'll restrict my question here to, does the New Testament, in fact, accuse the Jews of killing Christ?
I'm afraid that I couldn't proceed too far in defending the political correctness of the New Testament without beginning to sound like I'm trying to make the Bible sound like something it isn't -- a systematic compendium of well ordered thought, brimming over with twentieth century enlightenment. How would I then explain why Joshua shouldn't have been brought before an international war crimes tribunal for genocide? Why Wasn't King David unceremoniously ejected out the same door as Jim Baaker and Jimmy Swaggart for his relations with Bethsheba -- not to speak of the murder of her husband, while King Saul was rejected for something that would only make the back page of the local rag? What about King David's, and King Solomon's numerous wives? What about Hoseah marrying a prostitute? Or Jepthah sacrificing his daughter? What about Yeshua saying to the Syrophoenecian woman, in effect, "Get lost you dog!"
Do I believe in the Bible?
Yes, very much.
So, how do I explain all of the above?
I don't. I don't take the Bible as a politically correct, systematic compendium of well ordered thought, brimming over with twentieth century enlightenment. Nor do I take it as a mathematically logical set of formulas on how to maintain a well ordered life.
What the Bible does do is get its point across concerning just about every aspect of life, but to understand it you must read it as it was intended to be read.

...but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, and to people living 2000 years from now, politically incorrect... (I Corinthians 1: 23 Baruch's version)
So, back to the question -- er -- what question?
Let's go with this one: What if a few passages of the New Testament do insinuate that the Jews are "Christ Killers"?
Let's look at the context.
Who was Jesus? Was he a Roman Catholic? Was he a Protestant? Was he an Englishman?
No. He was a Jew -- a first century Jew, subject to Jewish law. He wasn't even a Roman citizen, like Paul was.
So, what happened?
A Jewish court tried a Jewish man, and judged, rightly or wrongly, that he had infringed the Jewish law in a way that warranted his death.
Is that such a big scandal? What nation has never been guilty of something like that?
Well, okay, so the one they sent to his death, in this case just happened to be the Messiah.
Okay, but whose Messiah? The Roman Catholic Messiah? The Anglican Messiah?
These institutions didn't even exist yet. Yeshua's only claim to Messiahship was based on Jewish Law and on the utterances of Jewish prophets.
Those Greco-Romans who were present at the crucifixion, far from being aghast at how Jews could do such a thing as kill "Our Christ", fully co-operated in the matter. They went even a step further by providing a crown of thorns and performing a mock coronation as "King of the Jews", a label obviously meant to insult the Jewish community as well. It's ironic that much later, the same Romans began calling the Jews "Christ Killers", but only when "Christ" was no longer thought of as Jewish. Never have we ever heard the accusation, "Killers of the King of the Jews".
When they mocked Him as "King of the Jews", the Greco-Roman world had absolutely no concept of a messiah. That only came later through Jewish preachers who came proclaiming what only became possible through His death. For the Gentiles to have any part in the whole affair to begin with somebody had to kill Christ as the atonement for the sin of humanity. It could happen no other way.
As Yeshua Himself once said, let He who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm very much afraid that we Gentiles, as sinful as we are, have gone and done just that by calling the Jews "Christ Killers", in fact, biting the hand that fed us.
Now, we've looked at how much weight the accusation carries given the historical setting of the act itself, and we've seen that, right or wrong, those making the accusation had no business making it. Now, let's see how the New Testament actually treats it.
Following the death and resurrection of Yeshua, the first one who sounds like he's calling the Jews "Christ Killers", is Peter. He makes the insinuation three times, the first, on the feast of Shavuot (or Pentecost as it was called in Greek) when he preached to the crowd who were attracted to the 120 followers of Messiah speaking in other languages:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
Perhaps a more telling statement is the one he made to the crowd in the temple following the healing of the paralytic:
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. (Acts 3:13-18)
We notice three things here. First, he is addressing the members of the general public, and second, he is somewhat lenient with them, saying "I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers". Finally, he acknowledges that this was how it was meant to be from the beginning, so as to fulfill the plan of God.
When addressing the High Priest and other officials the next day, he doesn't sound quite as accommodating, probably because he's speaking to those who were directly involved:
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ (Acts 4:8-11)
So, we see that Peter laid the responsibility directly where it rested, with those who actually did it, not the whole Jewish race, nor even the whole Jewish religion.
Let's now look at Paul's approach. Here is a passage from his speech to the synagogue in Antioch of Pysidia:
“Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. (Acts 13:26-28)
Here, we see that Paul lays the responsibility with "those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers".
So we see that while both Peter and Paul both state that it was the Jewish leaders who were responsible for the death of Messiah, they are very careful to lay the blame only on those directly involved.
Another point we need to make here is that both Peter and Paul were Jewish themselves. They did not see themselves as starting a new religion in opposition to Judaism. There is a big difference between the member of one group making a general accusation against another group, and someone making a statement about the group to which they belong. Peter and Paul were both insiders. They were not Roman Catholics (or even Protestants) making a sweeping general statement about the Jews. They were, themselves, Jews trying to bring change from within.
Paul was even more of an insider than Peter. He was a Pharisee (an Orthodox rabbi), who played by the rules, even when working for a change in the Jewish attitude towards Yeshua, as demonstrated by the events surrounding his first arrest. It began while he was going to the temple to offer a sacrifice to pay a vow according to Jewish Law. Shortly after that, when brought before the Sanhedrin, he was caught off guard on finding that the president was none other than the High Priest himself (often it was a member of the Pharisee sect, most notable of these being Hillel and Shammai, and later, Gamaliel). He acknowledged that because he hadn't realised this, he had said something out of order, so he apologised. Then, he said, "I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee..." and proceeded to use an insider argument to defend his case. Notice, he didn't used to be a Pharisee. He was still a Pharisee.
His approach to spreading the news of Messiah was "to the Jew first, and then the Gentile". He was the one credited with opening the door to Gentiles to become a part of the Messianic community. He didn't intend to start a separate religion. When the synagogue to whom he spoke the words quoted earlier didn't accept his message, he left saying, "I'm going to the Gentiles". He simply went out, with some of the Jews and interested Gentiles following and, in effect, started a new synagogue, officiated a similar way as other synagogues, with a committee of elders. His attitude towards the Jewish community can be summed up by the following passage:
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)
His opening the door to the Gentiles wasn't a totally new thing. Orthodox Judaism then, as now, has a provision for Gentiles who wish to worship God without having to conform to the whole Jewish Law. They have what is called the "Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah", or the "Noachide Law", derived from commandments God gave to Noah after the flood. These are remarkably similar to the guidelines the Apostles in Jerusalem wrote in a letter to believing Gentiles, which we have reproduced for us in Acts 15:23-29.
The only difference with the new Messianic sect was that Gentile believers can be a part as equals, not second class citizens. Again, this is made possible precisely because Messiah was put to death.
Having proclaimed the door open to the Gentiles, Paul gave them a stern warning never to take a superior attitude towards the Jews:
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:19-24)
So, faith seems to be a tentative thing. It simply won't co-exist with revenge or any other attitude such as would even come close to applying the Blood Libe. We are forgiven, according to Yeshua, only as long as we forgive. It is ironic that it is this very same church, the Romans, to whom Paul wrote these words, that later became among the biggest offenders (though by no means the only ones).
The point is, it was a Jewish thing. The New Testament is a Jewish book. What we now call "Christianity" was a sect of Judaism. There was no such thing as a convert from Judaism to Christianity. The issue that Paul fought tooth and nail for was for Gentiles to be recognised as fellow believers without having to become Torah observant. There was never the question of whether Jews could or should keep kosher diets or keep the Sabbath etc. etc. -- until about one or two hundred years later. Once there was a Gentile majority in the Church, then leaders began demanding that Jewish converts forsake Jewish observances and pactices. The date for Resurrection Sunday was set so that it would never co-incide with Jewish Passover, because this was a "Christian" thing, not "Jewish". In fact, the name for it became "Easter", borrowed from a pagan Roman holiday (we'd rather be pagan than Jewish!). Now Christianity was a separate religion from Judaism, a concept totally foreign to Peter's and Paul's way of thinking.
My point is, the New Testament is a Jewish book, meant to be read in the context of the Jewish understanding of things. Of course, you'll read rebukes by Jews directed at their fellow Jews, but to use it to support the blood libel against the whole Jewish community, is not only out of context, but is about as far from the original intent as can be imagined. For myself, I humbly apologise to the Jewish community that we've done this.

The Blessings of Ishmael

This is something I felt impressed some time ago, and may now be a timely word, in midst of the current intense pressure to hate the enemies of Israel and of the western world.
We know, from the following passage that we are to bless the descendants of Abraham, if we are to be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3 NKJV):

Now the LORD had said to Abram:
"Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

We've always assumed that that applies to Israel, which primarily, it does. But there's another angle as well, which I believed we've missed. To an extant, the promise to Abraham also includes Ishmael (the Arab nations), as the following scriptures indicate. The following passages don't pronounce as profound a blessing on Ishmael as on Isaac, but if you want to look at the other side of the coin: What about the rest of us? On what other nation on earth has God pronounced any blessing at all at it's very beginning? The only blessing we have is the privilage of becoming spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham by faith (not that it isn't the greatest blessing, by far). But read the following for yourself, and see if you don't think it behooves us to honour the children of Ishmael?
God's word to Hagar as she fled from Sarah, while pregnant with Ishmael (Gen 16:9-12 NKJV):

The Angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your
mistress, and submit yourself under her hand." Then
the Angel of the LORD said to her, "I will multiply
your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not
be counted for multitude." And the Angel of the LORD
said to her:
"Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has heard your affliction.
He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

God's word to Abraham regarding Ishmael when promising the birth of Isaac (Gen17:18-21 NKJV):

And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live
before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall
bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac;
I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting
covenant, and with his descendants after him. AND AS
FOR ISHMAEL, I HAVE HEARD YOU. BEHOLD, I HAVE BLESSED
HIM, AND WILL MAKE HIM FRUITFUL AND WILL MULTIPLY HIM
EXCEEDINGLY. HE WILL BEGET TWELVE PRINCES, AND I WILL
MAKE HIM A GREAT NATION. But My covenant I will establish
with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time
next year."

God's word to Abraham when instructing him to send Ishmael away (Gen 21:12-13 NKJV):

But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing
in your sight because of the lad or because of your
bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to
her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.
YET I WILL ALSO MAKE A NATION OF THE SON OF THE
BONDWOMAN, BECAUSE HE IS YOUR SEED."

God's word to Hagar regarding Ishmael, after leaving Abraham's household (Gen 21:17-18 NKJV):

And God heard the voice of the lad. Then the angel of
God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her,
"What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard
the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the
lad and hold him with your hand, for I WILL MAKE HIM
A GREAT NATION."

...Not just one blessing, but four!
Even if the children of Ishmael have not been honouring the children of Israel, as commanded, what is our response? If our two elder brothers, both of whom we are to honour, get into a fight, what do we do? Does honouring one mean we must dishonour the other? That can be a bit of a dilemma. The world says, "My friend's enemy is my enemy," and then joins one side against the other. In the kingdom of God, of course, Jesus told us to love our enemies. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (Psalm 122:6), may mean to pray for peace between the two sons of Abraham, which can only come through the Prince of Peace.
Now, what if, in the mean time, one of those two sons drives a jet plane into your office building...?