The Quran Predicted The Mutual Conflicts Between Christians And Jews

Prof. Salama Abdelhady

.113 The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (to stand) upon." Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.
This verse predicted what happens now between Christians and Jews. In spite of Jesus was one of the Jews, the Jews say, as we see in the First part of the article, the Christians have naught to stand upon. Such statement proves the Quranic Prediction in this Verse
First Part:Jewish theology rejects the idea that the messiah, or any human being, is a divinity, and such an idea has always been regarded as idolatrous. Further, Judaism does not view the role of the messiah to be the salvation of the world from its sins, an integral part of Christian theology (1). Judaism does not accept Jesus as the biblical messiah, nor does it assign him any religious role at all. Contrary to Christian beliefs, Judaism Jesus as a messiah, because:


Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zachariah.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the MessiahJesus was not a prophet, prophecy having ended with Malachi approximately 350 years prior to Jesus's birth.Jesus was not a scion of the house of David, as tribal affiliation in Judaism is solely patrilineal, and Jesus is claimed to be the son of God, not man.

Jesus did not lead the Jews back to full Torah observance, instead contradicting the Written and Oral Laws in the New Testament.
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations, including those relating to virgin birth and suffering servitude.
Jewish belief is based on national revelation, not on miraculous events performed for small groups, and there was no mass revelation similar to the one at Sinai.
The place of Jesus in Messianic Judaism is not clearly defined (2).
Messianics believe the first role of Messiah was to rescue the world from spiritual bondage, and that he will return again to rescue the world from physical oppression and establish his unending Kingdom – again, a belief that is identical to the normative Christian view of the Messiah. George Berkley claims that Messianics "worship not just God but Jesus" whom they call Yeshua (3). As with many religious faiths, the exact tenets held vary from congregation to congregation. In general, essential doctrines of Messianic Judaism include views on God(omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, outside creation, infinitely significant and benevolent). Jesus is not believed, in the views of Jews, to be the Jewish Messiah though views on his divinity vary, Messianics believe that Israel (the Children of Israel are central to God's plan,replacement theology is opposed), the Bible (Tanakh and the New Testament are usually considered the divinely inspired Scripture, though Messianics are more open to criticism of theNew Testament canon than is Christianity), eschatology (similar to many evangelical Christian views), and oral law (observance varies, but virtually all deem these traditions subservient to the written Torah). Certain additional doctrines, including sin and atonement and faith and works, are more open to differences in interpretation (4).
There exist among Messianics a number of perspectives regarding who exactly makes up God'schosen people. These are 'covenant membership, and halakhic definitions. Most commonly, Israel is seen as distinct from Ekklesia; Messianic Jews, being a part of both Israel and Ekklesia, are seen as the necessary link of the 'Gentile' People of God to the commonwealth of God's people of Israel. The two-house view, and the one law/grafted-in view are held by many identifying as Messianic, although some Messianic groups do not espouse these theologies (5). Many Messianics believe that all of the moedim, indeed the entire Torah, intrinsically hint at the Messiah, and thus no study of the End Times is complete without understanding the major Jewish Festivals in the larger prophetic context. To these believers, Passover, First Fruits, and Shavuot were fulfilled in Jesus's first coming, and Yom Teruah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot will be at his second. Many Messianics believe in a literal 7000 year period for the human history of the world, with a Messianic Millennial SabbathKingdom before a final judgment (6). There is a variety of practice within Messianic Judaism regarding the strictness of Torah observance. Generally, "Torah observant" congregations observe Jewish Law, biblical feasts, and Sabbath, although they do not teach that Gentiles need observe Torah. While most traditional Christians deny that the ritual laws and specific civil laws of thePentateuch (though still affirming that Torah is the word of God) apply directly to themselves, passagesregarding Torah observance in the New Testament are cited by Messianics that Torah was not abolished for Jews. They point out that in Acts 21 we find that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem are "zealous for Torah" and that Paul himself never stopped being observant. Most Messianics believe that observance of the Torah brings about sanctification, not salvation, which was to be produced only by the Messia

The Christians have the (same) Book of the Jews and call it the Old Testament. However; they say: the Jews have naught to stand upon; which proves the Quranic prediction in the stated verse since more than 14 centuries..


The origins of anti-Judaism or Christian anti-semitism (8) can be traced back to the growing estrangement between the early Christian communities and the Jewish leaders of formative Judaism (9) in the Roman Empire of the first century of the common era. According to a traditional reading (10) of the Gospels found in the New Testament, this hostility was a product of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other Jewish groups' attacks and plots against Jesus, and more specifically, their stubbborn refusal to accept his teachings about the Law and the Kingdom of God. (11) For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (27:23-25), the charge of deicide--possible one of the most damaging and enduring calumnies against Jews by Christians--finds its roots in the alleged response by the "Jews" to Pilate's claim of innocence, "Let Him be crucified! ... His blood be upon us and on our children." Likewise, a literal reading of the usually virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric found in the Gospel of John has also encouraged and justified the historical marginalization and demonization of Jews. For instance, the author of this Gospel records Jesus denouncing a group of Jews with the words, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do" (Jn 8.44). (12) However, modern biblical scholarship, which among other things, recognizes the vital importance of the contextual nature of these and other New Testament writings, clearly demonstrates that the above literal readings of Matthew's and John's Gospels distorts their meanings. Therefore, for the sake of atoning for past mistakes, preventing them from being committed again, and building a new relationship with Jews, today's Christians must utilize and promote contextual readings of the Gospels

As pointed out above, the Gospel of Matthew contains anti-Jewish rhetoric, which, if read uncontextually, produces an uncharitable picture of ancient Jewish communities. (13) In contrast, a contextually aware interpretation demonstrates that Jesus' anti-Jewish rhetoric actually reflects the animosity of Matthew's community towards the local Jewish leaders of formative Judaism with whom it is in conflict. Matthew's community predominantly consisted of Jewish Christians who kept the Law, but in a manner that was faithful to those values taught by Jesus--justice, mercy, and faithfulness. (14) However, this respect for the Law and the Gospel writers' "extensive use of the Old Testament ... in order to connect Jesus to the history of Israel and to portray him as the embodiment of Jewish hopes [and] its stress on Jesus as one who comes not to destroy but to fulfil the Jewish law," (15) did not prevent conflict with the local leaders of formative Judaism. To the contrary, the author of Matthew was keen to differentiate and protect his community from what he believed were the false teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. (16) For example, the Gospel of Matthew makes the observation that because these Jewish leaders do not support Jesus' "new interpretation" of the law, they are not righteous (17) Furthermore, Matthew's desire to discredit those Jews who made life difficult for his community in Antioch (18) motivated him to present all the different Jewish groups as one homogenized, united force against Jesus and to insidiously exaggerate the conflict between Jesus and Jewish leaders by projecting his contemporary problems with the Scribes and Pharisees of Antioch into the world in which Jesus inhabited. (19)

The Gospel of Matthew is not the only New Testament source that has engendered anti-Jewish sentiment. Comparatively speaking, the Gospel of John is even more anti-semitic than any other Gospel. Despite its rebel as the "spiritual Gospel" because of its "uplifting and challenging" portrait of Jesus as the Divine Word, and its "overall Jewish 'feel,'" (20) this Gospel presents a very negative picture of Jews living in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Some examples of this representation of Jews are: it is claimed that the Jews wanted to persecute, and kill Jesus (Jn 5:16-18). because, he healed on the Sabbath anti equated himself to God; they do not follow anything in the Torah (Jn 7:19-24); they are potentially violent towards him when they take up stones to hurl at him (Jn 8:59 & 10:31); and they bear responsibility for Jesus' death because the chief priests and police shout out to Pilate who finds him innocent to "Crucify him! Crucify him!" (In 19:6) (21) Traditionally, Christians have interpreted these and other anti-Jewish rhetoric as evidence that virtually all Jews in the time of Jesus were against him and his followers and used this as an excuse to persecute for nearly two millennia. However, a contextual reading reveals that these negative representations, like those of the Gospel of Matthew highlighted above, are not an accurate reflection of Jesus' relationship with the Jewish leaders of his day; instead, they are a comment on the struggle between John's community and the local Jewish authorities who had recently being excluding Christians from some synagogues. (22) Thus, the Gospel of John can be considered a polemic and apologetic against a group of local Jews who "refuse[d] to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God" which presents Jesus and his followers as separate from "the Jews" (23) and Judaism, (24) not a manifesto to individually and collectively denigrate and persecute Jews.