Abraxas is a well known anguiped (snake legged) figure, associated with Gnosticism and possibly with Alexandrian esoteric Judaism . It played a role at various points in the history of Christianity as a symbol of heresy, for example as a seal of certain Templar individuals and local chapters. The "Snake-Legged Goddess" or "Tendril-Legged Goddess" is another, earlier, anguiped divine figure associated with Scythian origin legends. Given that their respective followers co-existed within the context of Hellenistic religious culture before and during the Roman Empire, assuming a possible connection seems to make sense. However, I was not able to find any source making the connection explicitly. Are there any?

I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son. How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?

### The Catholic position. *There are many other sources, I just picked one at random* > "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, **without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure**: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." **Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.** > > Summa Theologica - Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? **Basically, if you are married the venereal act must always be unprotected and end inside.** They will often also point out this particular situation in Genesis 38, quoted from the NKJV to reflect the catholic preference for the MT Old Testament. > NKJV: 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also. Right, so Onan pulled out and the average catholic person suggests that this was the problem. (I humbly disagree, but that's off-topic here) I think this side of the issue is well understood so let me show the Jewish side of it. ### The Jewish position (Talmud) The ancient Jewish views come from rabbinic interpretations like the Talmud and later writings. As Christians and Jews understand, sexual acts are supposed to be within marriage. And focus on procreation. A focus is not the same as the outright demand of the catholic position. Here are some quotes of the English from the Talmud in Nedarim 20b. > However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, **whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes**, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. (Nedarim 20b:4 ) > The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?** (Nedarim 20b:6 ) I'm sure we are adult enough to understand the euphemism of a "turned-over table" here in the context of a woman who is upset about it. But I'm going to quote the Talmud again because I really don't want this euphemism to be misunderstood. > The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there **Er and Onan**, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin. (Yevamot 34b:1 ) The verse about Onan has mixed opinions but from what I can tell primary objectionable act is that Onan was disobeying God by blatantly disregarding his levirate marriage obligation. Not even putting it in the wrong hole itself. Looking through other things on Sefaria I found all kinds of instructions like... > Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first. - Iggeret Hakodesh, 13th C. (found in this article ) Also, I looked in Mi Yodeya (J:SE) - What are reasons of מצוות עונה marital sex? 3. Wife is longing for Husband & 4. Husband simply does not want to be tempted to sexual sin. (Additionally the answer starts with wives have a right to sexual pleasure just as they do clothing and food... so yeah) ### Quick side by side | **Aspect** | **Catholic Position** | **Ancient Jewish Position** | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | **Core Principle** | Sex must always unite procreation and unity; no exceptions. | Sex should prioritize procreation but allow marital freedom for pleasure or preventing sin. | | **Scriptural Basis** | Genesis 38 (Onan), natural law theology (Aquinas). | Genesis 38 (Onan), Leviticus 15, Talmudic interpretations. | | **Flexibility** | Rigid; universal rules apply to every act. | More flexible; depends on intent, context, and rabbinic opinion. | Ancient Jewish regulations are pragmatic and interpretive, shaped by rabbinic debate, and don’t enforce a universal procreative mandate for every act. Catholicism, with its rigid systematic theology (Augustine, Aquinas, etc), insists on procreation as mandatory in every instance. ### Things I've checked already... I've looked at these aspects so far... but I'm giving up and asking you guys now. - Jesus did not abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) - Flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) does not contradict the previous Jewish understanding in any way. - Galatians 3 // Acts 15 Both of these passages do not suggest that any previous sexual laws or understandings of immorality had changed. - The marriage as an icon of Jesus and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-33 doesn't retroactively change the previous understandings either, if anything it strengthens them. - And of course, we have the entire book of Song of Songs which urges us to Love God with the same passion as two people in passion. (This is mentioned here as well ) ### Question On what basis do the Catholics change the original ancient understandings on this subject? No traps here... honestly curious as, to why the Catholics made this rigid universal rule when none existed previously. Edit: Talmud is way too late to be valid in the format I presented. Making my question a frame issue. I'm not deleting this though as the answers are insightful.

If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian? What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Unitarian? This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?

> Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55, ESV) In order to maintain the belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary, many Christians claim that the use of the Greek word for brother, ἀδελφός, can also be used to mean cousin . From my understanding the more proper term for cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only once in the NT by Paul: > Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), (Colossians 4:10, ESV) The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions "James the brother of Jesus" in his *Antiquities of the Jews*: > Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother (ἀδελφός) of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; My question is twofold; Do we have any writings from Josephus where he uses the term ἀδελφός and it is clear that he uses it to mean cousin or kinsman? Also does Josephus ever use the term ἀνεψιός?

[Tefillin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin)1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done. Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5 (NIV) reads: > Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long. It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees. Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not? If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous? 1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)

Are the Jewish people the chosen and if so why?...My uneducated Grandmother always said the the Jewish people were the chosen because they were the only people who kept God's laws at that time..such as, feast of the tabernacle, fest of unlevened bread..etc..I am confused. If not born Jewish, are the rest Gentiles? And if the Jewish are the chosen people why are they blinded to the first coming of Christ?

I've been reading a lot from Messianic Jewish sources. I'm really interested in the [Siddur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddur) , but I can't find any sources which can tell me if the prayers and rituals in the Siddur were practiced in Jesus' time? Basically, I'm trying to figure out if the prayers in the Siddur are prayers with which Jesus would be familiar.

I recently took a "plunge" into the Jewish SE and noticed a very strong anti-christian sentiment from some of the active and "vocal" members. Some of this was my own reaction, but when viewed by others they agreed (in varying amounts) that it was anti-christian. To be fair, they are supposed to not allow the temptation of idolatry even start at all. (To the point of not even enjoying the physical beauty of a church) They view the New Testament as "sly" and "sneaky" full of references to make the jewish people seem lesser or cursed. As well as many other things. Some of this was likely due to a generalization against Christians, because of bad people who twisted scripture one way or the other. That type of thing does happen and it is invariably a regrettable fruit of having no spiritual guidance. And as much fun as it would be to "rip apart" the protestants or the "crusaders" that is not going to help anyone either. (And yes, nazi's were evil, stalin was also evil and worse, ho hum, off topic) I can understand the original animosity from Jews towards Christians. After all we are "jewish heretics" from their perspective. And that part is perfectly understandable. And I can understand the early church being very hostile towards jewish religious leaders, considering they had been hunted by them before that, and they outright rejected the Messiah. But... I mean... oh just read some of it and maybe it makes a little bit of sense why they feel like they have been "persecuted" for 2000+ years. > St John Chrysostom: Adversus Jedaeos (Against the Jews) Homily 1. > I > > (4) And so I wanted again today to engage in that contest. *For if the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the God of all.* But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers. > >(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with **the Judaizing disease**. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, *some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions*; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. > >(6) And so it is that I hasten to anticipate this danger and prevent it. This is what physicians do. They first check the diseases which are most urgent and acute. But the danger from this sickness is very closely related to the danger from the other; since the Anomians impiety is akin to that of the Jews, my present conflict is akin to my former one. And there is a kingship because the Jews and the Anomians make the same accusation. And what charges do the Jews make? That He called God His own Father and so made Himself equal to God. The Anomians also make this charge-I should not say they make this a charge; they even blot out the phrase "equal to God" and what it connotes, by their resolve to reject it even if they do not physically erase it. > >II > >But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. *When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness.* We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. **They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness.** From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs. Note "The Root" referred to above is from the common practice of grafting, branches can be grafted onto different roots and different fruit bearing trees. Similar to this verse: Romans 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that **it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you**. >III > >Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons. > >(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. N**o Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?** > >(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, **who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.** But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. Now I get that St. Chrysostom was... upset to put it mildly. And I think I have not done us much favors by quoting it. But to my understanding he is not saying that he "held a nation" or "held a faith" responsible, and that is not how they used the word "jew" and "race" 2000 years ago either... But given how ... inflammatory this subject can be. It is hard to find any proper information, because if you search for it you overwhelmingly get results based on the modern climate. Ultimately the question I have are the following: 1. Is christianity in the modern sense "anti-semitic"? I don't believe so. 2. Is early christianity "anti-jew"? I feel like it has to be... A defense for St. John Chrysostom, the most outspoken church father against "jews" would be nice. But that is a historical issue. Answers should include your personal theological inclination at the start or end, so things are clear and easy to understand. (aka: which church are you from?) Note: I did not pick a particular denomination, this is because I am out of tags. Answers from the perspective of churches who have apostolic succession are preferred, but if a protestant has an answer I won't refuse.

There is an idea in Judaism that there is/was a messiah for every generation. I have heard some people muse that it was Christ in the Garden, and so I float the idea that during the timeline in which a Messiah was needed, is it possible that Christ has come before, either as: - Just an observer. - A messiah not realized. - A messiah who failed his initial goal. And by "Possible" I mean, does the Catholic Catechism explicitly or implicitly (but apodictically) rules these ideas out as blasphemous or heretical?

This question is asked on the day that the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanna, the celebration of the new year, begins in 2024. The institution of the holiday is found in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 33: > 23 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 24 “Speak to the people of > Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, > you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with > blast of trumpets, a holy convocation. 25 You shall not do any > ordinary work, and you shall present a food offering to the Lord.” The gospels depict Jesus as participating in several Jewish holidays but not this one, as far as I know. Based on the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers, does this holiday figure in early Christian tradition?

I understand that most scholars think that book of Daniel is a forgery and definitely not written in the 6th century BC and not written by Daniel. What strikes me is why Christians traditionally think that the book was written by Daniel ? In the book itself, first 1-6 chapters, it's written in 3rd person and not 1st which definitely don't mean at all that book was written by Daniel. For sure, 7-12 sometimes talk about in 1st person but what solid argument does this give that book was written by Daniel ? Would you be able to shed lights about why Christians think that it was written by Daniel ? what's their reasoning ?

John 14:6: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..” **A Jewish professor that I know argues that this statement is true for all prophets concerning the people they were sent to. That a critical misunderstanding has led Christians to imagine the statement is only true for Jesus. He asserts that Noah was the way, the truth, and the life for his people. Those who didn't believe in him perished in the flood.** In the same way, he says Moses was the way, the truth, and the life for the Israelites when he was their leader/prophet (he cites the passover and says any family that refused to obey Moses would have lost a firstborn). According to him, Jesus cannot be *the way*, *the truth*, and *the life* for the people of Noah and Moses when those people were not obligated to believe in him. He cites Hebrews 1:1: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways" He also cites Jeremiah 21:8; Malachi 2:6-7; Malachi 2:8-9; Proverbs 12:28; Proverbs 19:23; and Proverbs 11:19 as evidence that those who followed the prophets were righteous, and the right way of life. How do I rebut this, with references and wisdom?

As Christians, we can look at New Testament passages and conclude the Jews of the New Testament era _were_ expecting the Messiah. What I am looking for in this question is: What evidence is there _outside_ the New Testament that the Jews of the NT era were expecting "very soon" the coming of the Messiah. And what understanding did they have of the type of person the Messiah would be and of the type of work he would accomplish? Did the Jews think the Messiah was coming _soon_ and _what type of work_ did they think would he do? Please show your sources. Thanks.

The first Christians such as Justin Martyr, the Church Fathers such as Augustine, the Reformers such as Luther were all anti-Semites. Why was that so? Here are some quotes: > Luther: "Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling > matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save > our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal > death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues > be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulfur and pitch; it > would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would > demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the > world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which > the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son > most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due > reward." > > > John Chrysostom: "Again the Jews, the most miserable and wretched of > all men. But today the Jews, who are more dangerous than any wolves, > are bent on surrounding my sheep; so I must spar with them and fight > with them so that no sheep of mine may fall victim to those wolves. > Isaiah called the Jews dogs and Jeremiah called them mare-mad horses. > This was not because they suddenly changed natures with those beasts > but because they were pursuing the lustful habits of those animals." > > Pope Clement VIII: "All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, > their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people > into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people > and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded > intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since > they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their > ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to > be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live." https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-jewish-problem---from-anti-judaism-to-anti-semitism/the-jewish-problem-adversus-judeaos-against-the-jews-376333

I read the following on the internet: > Jesus continued practicing Judaism, per Luke 4:16 ("as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read"). > > The Pharisees criticized Jesus because they (incorrectly) thought he violated God's commandments, something they wouldn't have cared about if he hadn't been Jewish. [Luke 4:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204&version=NIV) says: > He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place [where it is written](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061&version=NIV) : > > "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” > > Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “**Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing**.” > > All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. **“Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked**. > > Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” > > “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of **Sidon** [in Lebanon]. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the **Syrian**.” > > **All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this**. **They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff**. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way. As reported, above, Jesus speaks from Isaiah. The [Isaiah passage](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061&version=NIV) continues to say: > They will **rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations**. Strangers will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards. And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God. **You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast**. Instead of your shame you will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace you will rejoice in your inheritance. And so **you will inherit a double portion in your land**, and everlasting joy will be yours. In my faithfulness I will reward my people and make an everlasting covenant with them. Their descendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the Lord has blessed > > I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem and makes her the praise of the earth. > >The Lord has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: “**Never again will I give your grain as food for your enemies, and never again will foreigners drink the new wine for which you have toiled**; but those who harvest it will eat it and praise the Lord, and those who gather the grapes will drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.” Jesus later did not appear to teach what Isaiah taught. In fact, the very opposite, for example, Jesus's ministry did not appear concerned with accruing worldly material wealth ([Matthew 6:24](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A24&version=NIV)) ; Jesus appeared to prophesize the destruction of The Temple & the towns ([Mark 13:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013%3A1%2D3&version=NIV)) ; and Jesus appeared to deemphasize Jewish tribal identity ([Luke 10:25-37](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=good+Samaritan&version=NIV) ; [Colossians 3:11-13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203%3A11%2D13&version=NIV)) . Is/was it the "practice of Judaism" to publicly claim you are a special anointed Prophet, to quote the Jewish prophets out of context, to praise Gentiles in Lebanon and Syria, and to make the Jewish congregation so angry to throw you off a cliff?

It seems the Bible is anti-Semitic or how else do you explain these Bible passages? God himself wanted to kill all Jews but Moses stopped him: > (Ex 32:9-11) 9 And the LORD said to Moses, I have seen this people, > and behold, they are a stubborn people; 10 and now let my anger be > kindled against them and I will destroy them, but I will make you a > great nation. 11 And Moses prayed to the LORD his God, saying, Why, O > LORD, should your anger be kindled against your people, whom you > brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty > hand? God said Israel is the worst nation of the world: > (Ezek 5:4-9) 4 Then you shall take some of them again and throw them > into the midst of the fire and burn them with fire, and a fire shall > go out from them against the whole house of Israel. 5 Thus says the > Lord GOD: I have set this Jerusalem in the midst of the nations and > the countries around it. 6 And she was rebellious against my judgments > in wickedness more than the nations, and against my statutes more than > the countries that are round about her; for they have rejected my > judgments, and they have not walked in my statutes. 7 Therefore, thus > says the Lord GOD: Because you have rebelled more than the nations > that are around you, because you have not walked in my statutes and > have not done my judgments, yes, not even according to the judgments > of the nations that are around you, 8 therefore, thus says the Lord > GOD: Behold, I also will be against you and will execute judgments in > your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do to you what I > have not done, and what I will not do again, because of all your > abominations. God said all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart: > (Ezek 3:5-7) 5 For you are not sent to a people of foreign speech > and a hard language, but to the house of Israel— 6 not to many peoples > of foreign speech and a hard language, whose words you cannot > understand. Surely, if I sent you to such, they would listen to you. 7 > But the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, for they > are not willing to listen to me: because all the house of Israel have > a hard forehead and a stubborn heart. Apostle Paul about the Jews: > (1 Thess 2:14-16) 14 the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and > persecuted the church, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by > hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so > as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come > upon them at last!

God is described as Yahweh passim in the Old Testament, but where in the New Testament is God described as a Yahweh?