for those who don't know why "stabbing bread" was seen as grave crime in 1370, in christianity bread is the granted embodiment \[hlaibaz/laib/loaf, french:panís/pain \] of god himself you can take in, sharing, breaking, cutting it is a symbolic feast. So in picture it tells short of stabbing jesus himself, accused of such crime would have caused disgust but in a biblical dimension and therefor was used to depict a scene to frame a part of community and explicit suggest extra sharp alignment.
That hints most likely to some larger schemed power struggle. Back in that days the Avignon papacy relatied to france kingship challenged ('western shism') roman papal power. 1377 the papacy returned to rome, rivaling claimants emerged, which forced churches and their hosting kings to align themselves to one of those. How to align when your audience is largely illiterate? You use pictures or 'sacred' item exhibits, which also allowed accumulate economic benefit by attracting pilgrims or convince common folks. edit: shall not be forgotten, back then capital punishment was common, so to burn convicts publicly would spread the word on steroids, so basically an early propaganda machine.
70
Cynical_Classicist22 hr ago
+15
You certainly know your medieval history!
15
asdhjasdhlkjashdhgf22 hr ago
+18
rather culture history, early depictions, roots of idioms, geographic and technological limitations, reasoning for societal formations (prior nation states), and spread of ideas, languages, architecture, tools, all super exciting to learn from.
From a certain point a simple year research gives a lot of clues - and recreating the scenery allows you to wrap your head around why things might have been and not different. At the end thats all you find - most often mistake regarding the past is to think of secular states, which is certainly not fitting the past, church was implicit also library, schools, hospital, register, crowning institution, heritage care, childcare, psychologist, law installer, 'fair' trial court house provider, and social care, job market, or even power balance control, and on and on.. the separation (specialization)and secular state idea came much later.
18
htmwc23 hr ago
+5
Interesting! Thanks! Nice to learn something on listnook
5
Amazing-Artichoke33021 hr ago
+31
One of the Canterbury Tales is a blood libel against the Jews. That one is often omitted.
31
UselessInsight19 hr ago
+26
1370?
Better late than never I suppose.
26
Seagoon_Memoirs17 hr ago
+8
Not just any church, this is the main cathedral of the Catholic church in Belgium.
8
mentalSS19 hr ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
bennyxvi11 hr ago
+1
It sounds in one part like the window has been removed, but the Rabbi also says that the images should not be erased. Were they moved somewhere?
Anyway, it’s not like it’s some medieval masterpiece, it’s from the 1900s.
1
enhelspecial17 hr ago
-24
IDF smashes the head of Jesus
Christians: sorry for the antisemitism in 1370
-24
NagyLebowski16 hr ago
+29
A lone soldier doing a thing to an inanimate object he was punished for (and the IDF helped replace the damaged object), versus untold deaths and misery of real humans over thousands of years. Totally the same to you I guess…
29
UselessInsight16 hr ago
+23
I mean, if we’re keeping score…
I don’t think the statue thing quite compares to the horrors the Christian Church subjected Jewish people to over the last 1900-2000ish years.
23
811545b2-4ff7-40419 hr ago
+3
Go look at the titles of books written by Martin Luther the Reformationist. The antisemitic rot in Europe stems from hundreds of years ago.
3
Ok-Pair-278321 hr ago
-36
They may as well apologize for Christianity because no matter how modern Christians try to distance themselves ftom antisemitism it is baked in their believe system there is no hiding from that
-36
Caspica21 hr ago
+14
How is it baked in to their belief system?
14
mhornberger8 hr ago
+1
Read Constantine's Sword, by James Carroll. It focuses on the Catholic Church for the most part, but touches on Martin Luther and other non-Catholic issues as well. It cites tons of sources about antisemitism in Christianity, blaming Jews for the death of Christ, calling them demonic or in league with Satan, etc, going back centuries. Which doesn't mean "every single Christian," just that there's a lot in the intellectual and theological history of the religion that gets glossed over or ignored.
1
RedditIsADataMine21 hr ago
+7
Are you mentally incapacitated in some capacity? Do you realise our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was Jewish?
7
hoodiemeloforensics19 hr ago
-7
Why do people keep saying this. If you are a Christian, then no, the lord and savior was not Jewish. He is God made man, delivering his final message to God's followers, such that they would spread His message and all of creation would know of salvation.
You could describe his original followers as Jewish, and those followers would consider themselves Jewish even after conversion. But the fragmented Israelite religious authority, which would codify its practices as a response to Christianity through the Talmud, rejected Jesus as God.
Modern day Christianity and Judaism are basically schismatics of the same tree that are diametrically opposed. For Jews, Christians are idol worshipers defiling the name of God with every word. And for Christians, Jews are followers of the Pharasees, clinging to their selfish old way that Jesus chastised and rejecting God with every breath.
So no, Jesus, to Christians was not a Jew, he's God. To Jews, he's a Jew who was basically a blaspheming super heretic.
-7
Turtlexya14 hr ago
+2
While interesting, why do Christians refer to him as king of Jews? If you follow him and call him Lord, shouldn't you also be Jewish, since otherwise you have no reason to worship someone with such a title?
2
hoodiemeloforensics11 hr ago
King of the Jews is a holdover from biblical times. All followers of God are Jews in the time of Jesus. And yes, to an extent, a Christian is a Jew. That's where the schism happened.
If a Jew is a follower of God, then the true Jews are those who accepted the word of God from Jesus Himself, from the perspective of a Christian. At least when you look it from the time of Jesus. Every Jew who would follow Jesus still considered themselves Jewish, even if the Judean religious authority did not.
I think it's important to note that Judaism was not a strongly codified religion in Jesus' time. It was quite a fractured faith. It was only after the fall of the second temple that things started to solidify as a necessity. The Christians were first to create this kind of institutionalized religion. The Jews codified their religion in large part to the threat Christianity posed to their already scattered people and mimicked some parts of the institutionalization they saw in Christian religion.
0
gayphilantropist21 hr ago
-22
How come?
Isn't Judaism even more so tainted with Christian blood? What was happening to "Christian" converts in Israel during and after 60AD for instance?
History is messy.
-22
Blue_Rook21 hr ago
+15
Christian converts in 60 AD? There was no likely nothing reminding modern christianity at that time. Maybe just big maybe some niche Galilean messianistic judaism sect existed.
15
gayphilantropist20 hr ago
-6
Why do you think I put Christian in quotation marks? Though some do believe that the term "Christian" was already used earlier, as early as the 40AD if I recall correctly, but I don't remember exactly.
-6
hoodiemeloforensics19 hr ago
+6
It's right to put it in quotation marks. Whether it's 40AD or 60AD, nearly all people who believed in the word of Jesus were Israelites and would have considered themselves Jews, even if the religious authority did not. The term Christian, if used, would have been by Israelite/Roman authorities in Judea to specifically attempt to separate the "Jews" from the "Christians".
It was only after the fall of the second temple that Christianity started to be for "Christians" as it was spread through the Jewish merchant trade networks of the Mediterranean and took a strong foothold in the pagan urban populace of Roman cities.
6
North51420 hr ago
+15
Yeah they killed a few Jewish converts, you had the Jewish kingdom in Yemen I guess but when it comes to the vast history of the world though, by far, both the other Abrahamic faiths contributed an unending level of crimes against the Jewish people. Ironic considering where their faiths originate.
History may be messy but Jews were largely entirely the victims of these faiths and societies.
It’s one of a few reasons that I became alienated from the church. The historical anti Jewish policies are by far the stupidest things about Christian history, at least the Muslims wrote out Issac’s role and replaced him with Ishmael.
15
gayphilantropist20 hr ago
-3
I absolutely agree, they were persecuted more than anyone in recorded history, but that's not my point, my point is that early Christians suffered dearly at their hands and by proxy hands of Romans.
-3
North51420 hr ago
+8
And? What relevance does this have on Medieval Christian bigotry? You said even more so lol. Like dude it’s not close.
8
[deleted]1 day ago
-12
[removed]
-12
mhornberger1 day ago
+41
1370 was a little prior to the formation of Israel and the situation in Palestine. There were of course attacks on Jews long before the existence of Israel. So it's not like antisemitism is caused by the actions of that government.
29 Comments