Are "the" or "some" Jews Cursed?

*significantly re-edited, posted again*

Thank you, AbRah.

___

George (you are quoted below in blue),

Thank you.  I had already read that article by Todd Baker, or at least portions, and others like it, before I posted.  I would call that, as I did above, not only a �post-Modernist� exegesis, but a �sola scriptura, Judeo-Protestant� and thus by definition heterodox one as well.  Here, then, is what I consider the important bit.  Note that the author claims that the verses are in the main woefully �misunderstood� and �misinterpreted.�  He then seeks, after lo these 2,000 years, to set the record straight and to tell not less than the Church Fathers of his own impression of the verses� meaning.   I, for my part, wish him all the luck, or Godspeed in doing so.  The fact remains, as he (Baker) sees it:

�Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood [sic] and misinterpreted [sic]  passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of �His blood be upon us� means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God�s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages. The result, among other things, was the slanderous accusation that all Jews were �Christ killers� and �murderers of God.� Sadly, this is still a widespread belief in the Church today.�

I would call this (above) a Biblical camel.

�As I pointed out the Arabic [in Quran 9:30] does not allow us to read "some."  The verse infers "all" Jews.�

And this, I would call straining at a Quranic gnat.

�Further than that, since Allah would have know how Matthew 27:25 had been used to persecute and/or accuse all Jews of Jesus' murder I would think that he would have made sure that it didn't happen again with a verse in the Qur'an.  In other words, he would have identified the Jews as "x,y,z" Jews and not have left the impression that he condemned all Jews.�

Perhaps, when you have finished reading Zola Levitt (or recommending him), and unless you have done so, you might consider reading Heinrich Graetz�s multi-volume �History of the Jews.�  There, you will hear a learned Jew recount the ages, in detail, and say what a relief (to Jewry) Islam in general was when compared to Christianity.       

�Now could you tell me what your understanding is of the Jews calling Ezra the "son of God."  Why was that expression so horrid to Allah that he put a curse on them?�

Thank you for asking.  Beyond what I have said, I cannot provide a tafsir on the Quran any more than I can write an orthodox exegesis on this portion from Matthew.  At any rate, I generally prefer to read history.  The subject tends to be less contentious than theology.

Best regards,

Serv

Edited by Servetus

I wrote in my above post:

"Now this is the best of them all:

"Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, Jebusites,
Amorites, Giragsh*tes, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites. Arvadtes, Zemarites and
Hamathites.", looks like Ham was the Great Grandfather of all the bad guys!    
What a Curse?"

Note that how worst were the Giragsh*tes, even the word/language
processor on this site would not allow the "i" in the name.    

if you dont get rid of that blasted penguin, youll be getting 7 plagues!!