No Slade I don't, but I do believe in the truth and accuracy of scripture. Blood libel according to a Jewish website is as follows: The blood libel, an allegation that Jews murdered non-Jews for blood to make their Passover matzahs and for use in other rituals was one of the worse DEFAMATIONS and LIBELS in history. Untruths have the potential to become popular beliefs. These trumped up accusations were combined with the delusion that Jews were not human and had recourse to special remedies and magic in order to appear like other men. The blood libel led to many massacres of Jews and Jewish trials in the Middle Ages and the "blood libel" was again revived by the Nazis and has been used by anti-Zionists to defame the Jews.  
 
What is your definition, then of the Jewish people being responsible for the death of Jesus? Deicide, or being libel for the blood of Jesus? Thank you for giving me a definition of Blood Libel. I placed both the concept of Deicide as well as the matzot story in the same category. Perhaps I should not do this.
 
jt: The apostle Peter blamed them and so did Stephen a man full of the Holy Ghost, faith, and power.  Why do you take this so personally?  judyt 
 
I don't take it personally. Peter blamed certain individuals. He didn't blame the race. Do you blame certain individuals or do you blame the race?
 

Reply via email to