True. But it does pretty much mean – at least in this example – that they are not anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

There certainly were some (and still are) especially in the South. But today most conservative evangelical Christians would consider anti-Jewish slurs to be an attack on God’s Chosen People and find them to be offensive.

You might say that compared to Muslims, Mormons, Hindus or Jehovah’s Witnesses (or whatever church across town is competing for congregants), evangelicals find Jews to be their favorite followers of false doctrine.

Priya Lynn,

That’s a good point. When (as is often the case) the anti-gay ramblers say stupid and nutty stuff on other subjects, it builds the association between “anti-gay” and “bat-poop loony”

Jerry,

I think that there’s pretty good evidence that there was a man named Jesus who led some sort of religious movement in Judea. Additionally, it’s pretty well evident that the writers of the gospels – both those canonized and those rejected – were based on pretty close association (if not first hand, then from conversations with those who had seen or heard him). Consider: even “my grandpa told me that when he was a young man, he went to hear that Jesus guy” can be evidence – at least of existence – if enough people had grandpas tell them.

I don’t know of any early refutations of Christianity that used “he didn’t exist” as their premise (though there may have been some) and surely that would have been a most compelling argument if there were not already broad community assumption that he did exist.

(For example, I would say that L Ron Hubbard was a loon. But I wouldn’t argue that he didn’t exist.)

But, of course, who Jesus (Yeshua Ben Yosef) was (or wasn’t) and whether he’s going to return and when are all matters that are open to your interpretation.

I certainly don’t expect Zeus to show up either.

The other half of the answer is the failure of the Christians to convert the Jews to Christianty by ANY means.