Talk:Holocaust theology/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Nach Auschwitz

Added a sentence about the alternate term "theology nach Auschwitz," which is often used, particularly by continental theologians. Makrina 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson?

There is a Hebrew book, attributed to Rabbi Schneerson, in which he is said to have expressed a rather different view on Holocaust theology, than the views that are normally attributed to him in Chabad's literature and Chabad's websites. The philosopher, Adolf Grünbaum, claims that in this book, Emunah u-mada, Rabbi Schneerson asserted,

that, in permitting the Holocaust, God cut off the gangrenous arm of the Jewish people. . . the Holocaust was a good thing, because without it, the entire Jewish people would have perished.

I know that some people have challenged the veracity of this quote (for an old 1997 discussion on it see this. Since the book in question was published in Hebrew, and my Hebrew has long since rusted away, I wonder first if the quote provided by Grünbaum is accurate, and if it is, how do people reconcile it with the views attributed to Schneerson in this article?

JimFarm 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I came to the page hoping to find a evenly-toned unbiased NPOV description of the Chabad view on the topic, instead I find that the unfortunate individual from failedmessiah (google it, or better yet - don't) has had a field day here. Cleanup required. CMG 18:31, 1 July 2015

"Christian View" section content is in violation of basic Wiki policy

Acording to Wiki official policy "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed"

I propose that the section called "Christian views" should either be backed up with references to actual Chrisitan theologians who have claimed this (I seriously doubt any have), or be deleted as an an unpublished theory of the author. Sharktacos 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

holocaust sux

i hate the holocaust cause its too confusing even for the people that understand it gr:P

The holocaust totally sucks, no argument there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.97.1 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC).


Responce: By "sux", What exactly is meant by that? Those are words that should not be used to describe a mass genocide. And for those of you who aren't aware, the reason for the Jews extermination was not to die and suffer for their sins. It was to be a scapegoat for the failure at the time of the German government. The Jews were easy scapegoats because of the anti-semitism that had already existed for thousands of years and become so intertwined into the world's culture that it was an easy truth for most to accept. This anti-semitism only existed after the church (who has had much power since before the middle ages) made it so. If at the time all history and writings (which were controlled by the church)were telling the public that the Jews were evil (many imaginative stories that can still be found circulating)then there was no other truth that would exist. I'm not saying the church was lying intentionally, but they indeed did. Anyway, the Nazi party found it easy to eventually gain support of the church by putting on much of a false front. There was no actual religion behind Hitler, I can assure you that (...he eventually committed suicide, did he not? I think according to Christianity that alone would cause him to burn in Hell. Would it not?). However, without the support of the church he could not go far.

Anyway, I think that it is OK to have your own opinion on whatever you'd like. But before you say anything to extreme just imagine this:
You're a little girl (about eleven) and two Nazi's come into your home. The proceed to rip your beautiful gold earrings out of your ears causing the lobe itself to rip. They yell something in German. They then grab your father out of your home. Later you find out what happened to him. A friend of your mothers watched as they took him to literally dig his own grave. Then shot him in the head. Your father.
Over time you are forced deeper into the ghetto, then eventually to Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz extermination camps.
This is only a very brief part of my grandmothers story. DON'T WORRY. She survived, but not without scars and severe scoliosis from being whipped and the intense labor put on her young and still developing body. Her mother also survived, but was left with a permanent ink stain in her arm. A number, because she no longer had an identity. No, just a number.
My grandmother was lucky to have ANY family member survive. My Grandfather on the other hand was not so...

Please really know your history before you degrade me, and my family, those who were murdered, and those who survived but had to endure such suffering. I assure you, none of us "Jews" or anyone else for that matter can prove who killed Jesus. It's called faith for a reason, but I think people just ought to examine what they're having faith in. I think any hate of any type toward ANY group of people is unwarranted. It shouldn't matter who killed Jesus or if he even existed for that matter! It should be based on faith that you try to be a good person and not pass judgment on others. I think any religion would say that the ultimate decisions should be based on God himself and no one else.

Don't let history repeat itself.

    • An addition: the Genocide in Darfur. Look it up. And help if you can. It's the humane thing to do no matter WHAT your background.

--132.66.168.187 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation

I know that Judaism doesn't rule this out. Has anyone incorporated reincarnation into an explanation of the Holocaust? If someone knows I'd appreciate an email about this. Arrow740 08:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard the head sfarradi rabbi in Israel Rabbi Ovadya Yosef said that all the victims were reincarnated sinners, but I don't know how reliable this is.

By the way, this article is really quite horrible. I don't know what's really going on in the Reform movement but most of the answers claimed here to have "many" followers, such as Open Theism and the total abandance of God are totally unthinkable to any kind of believing Jew I've ever met. Even the claim of "they were sinners" seems much rarer than stated here, but that might be just because of my social surroundings (god, I hope it isn't!)

I visited the death camps and as far as I'm concerned, the holocaust makes me more of a believer. God, tradition and a shining normative are the only answers I see legitimate for all that chaos.


    • The idea may be that of a select few people. However, none of which I have met. I actually have a pretty strong problem with this idea. There is NO justification for these deaths. Only the truth of what happens when too much hate and bigotry exists in a society. Signed, A Third Generation Survivor--132.66.168.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Islam

What says Islam about holocaust? --134.147.67.119 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues of undue weight?

It would seem to me that Yad VaShem would be a fairly reliable source for a list of important Jewish post Holocaust theologians and philosophers, yet the weight given various thinkers in this article in no way ressembles the Yad VaShem bibliography. Here is Yad VaShem's list of key thinkers: http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust%5Cbibliography%5Chome_bibliography.html#32

Berkovits, Eliezer. Faith After the Holocaust. New York: Ktav, 1973.
---. With God in Hell: Judaism in the Ghettos and the Death Camps. New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1979.
Braiterman, Zachary. (God) after Auschwitz: Tradition and Change in Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Cohen, Arthur A. The Tremendum: A Theological Interpretation of the Holocaust. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
Fackenheim, Emil. God's Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections. New York: New York University Press, 1970.
Katz, Steven T. ed., The Impact of the Holocaust on Jewish Theology, New York: New York University Press, 2005
---. The Jewish Return to History: Reflections in the Age of Auschwitz and the New Jerusalem. New York: Schocken Books, 1978.
---. The Jewish Thought of Emil Fackenheim: A Reader. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987.
---. To Mend the World: Foundations of Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Katz, Steven. Post-Holocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought. New York: New York University Press, 1985.
Rubenstein, Richard. After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
Schweid, Eliezer. Wrestling Until Day-Break: Searching for Meaning in the Thinking of the Holocaust. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994.
Soloveitchik, Joseph B., Fate and Destiny, From Holocaust to the State of Israel. New York: Ktav, 2000
  • Arthur A Cohen is not mentioned at all
  • Eliezer Berkovits gets a scant three sentences despite meriting two books in this list. His publication history with the Shalem institute gets more attention than his theology.
  • Emil Fackenheim gets 5 sentences despite appearing on this list twice - once for his own work, and once in a reader compiled by a third party - surely a sign of notability. Also if one googles on the term "Holocaust Theology" he is in the top five or so hits and the first link dedicated to a particular thinker.
  • Eliezer Schweid is also not mentioned at all
  • Joseph B Soloveitchik is mentioned but his thought is never described
  • similarly none of the many authors in Katz's "The Impact of the Holocaust on Jewish Theology", an anthology of post-Holocaust theological reflection are mentioned either.

Meanwhile several thinkers who do not merit mention by name in the above list are listed first in the article above any of the people on the YadVaShem list and singled out for lengthy direct quotes and descriptions of their thought.

  • Menachem Schneerson appears no where on this list but is given a very long quote and lengthy summary of his thought. Including the quote, the section is more than 3 times the length of any of the thinkers on the YadVaShem list.
  • Menachem Riskoff appears no where on this list but is also given a lengthy quote
  • Joel Tietelbaum appears no where on this list but is also given a long quote
  • Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Eliahu Eliezer Dessler, Elazar Shachs all get more about their theology than Soloveitchick.

The Yad VaShem bibliography is pretty typical of other bibliographies found around the net for introductory/survey courses in Holocaust theology. To someone unfamiliar with the field of Holocaust theology, placing Scheerson, etc first and giving them much weightier quotes and discussions than other thinkers gives the misleading impression that Schneerson, Riskoff, etc are dominant voices in discussions of Holocaust theology.

Egfrank (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Any references for this statement?:

Within all of the monotheistic faiths many answers (theodicies) have been proposed. Although in light of the magnitude of depravity seen in the Holocaust, many people have re-examined classical views on this subject. A common question is, "How can people still have any kind of faith after the Holocaust?"

it seems like a very broad statement, and comes across very subjectively without relative materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshields0 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

The article should maybe mentions criticisms of the whole notion of Holocaust theology. In particular, some Christian theologians feel that it is in some ways irrelevant to Christianity because theology is about divine revelation instead of historical events in general, and that Christian revelation ended in the first century AD after Pentecost. Also, if the state of Israel were suddenly destroyed by a severe Iranian attack, it would arguably constitute a second Holocaust, but yet again it would not at all pertain to the 1st-century dogmas of the apostolic Church. Also, even if large numbers of Christians were massacred such as Armenians during the Armenian genocide, then the massacred people would be called martyrs and saints, but it would not necessarily be sufficient to constitute an independent theology on its own, since it happened long after the end of the apostolic Age. ADM (talk)

Have you got any suggested sources for these criticisms? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hiding Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) views

This article is being repeatedly censored (vandalized) by people who do not respect Wikipedia's NPOV and academic integrity policies. Someone keeps removing the point of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish rabbis, and faking the quotes of Chabad rabbis. I am including these deleted views back, with sources. The positions of the last two Chabad rabbis, it is critical to note, are subject to censorship by fanatic adherents of the late Rebbes, which is precisely why we need to work so hard to prevent vandalism in this article.

RK (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jews weren't the majority of victims

I don't want to sound like Holocaust denialist, but as far as I know there were more than 60 millions fatal victims of World War 2, of which majority were Chinese and Russian. Therefore I dare to notice that the sentence saying that Jews were the majority of victims of nazi regime and their allies is not true. Agnes86 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the article on World War II casualties, over 60 million people were killed in the War, representing 3% of the world population in 1940. If those who died due to war-related diseases and famines are included, the number rises to 80 million people. However these estimates includes casualties from all factions of the War, and they were not all killed by the Axis powers.

The Holocaust refers to those specifically targeted for extermination, and the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. They primarily consisted of Jews, ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, and other Slavs; Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs; communists; homosexuals; Freemasons; Jehovah's Witnesses; and various minority groups. The Jewish casualties are estimated to about 6 million people, with all Holocaust victims estimated to about 11 million people. (Though some scholars insist that the numbers may have been higher, and one estimate gives up to 13 million victims.) A relatively small number among war-related casualties, but still a candidate for the greatest genocide or mass massacre in history.

Jews are somewhat overrepresented in popular depictions of the War and the Holocaust, but their War casualties were massive in comparison to their relatively small demographic numbers. In 1939, the world population of Jews was estimated to be about 17 million people. Loosing 6 million was a demographic disaster for the group, and the Jews have yet to fully recover. The current Jewish population is estimated to almost 15 million people. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What? NOT ONE Section about the Holocaust and Christ?

NOTHING about its suspect as punishment for rejecting Christ the Savior, Jesus of Nazareth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.57 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What does a false Messiah from the 1st century have to do with 20th century deaths? Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holocaust theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holocaust theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

One thinker

In a very rare view that has not been adopted by any element of the Jewish or Christian community (that I know of), one thinker has proposed that the Holocaust is the ultimate form of vicarious atonement. The Jewish people become in fact the "suffering servant" of Isaiah. The Jewish people collectively suffer for the sins of the world.

Who is this "one thinker", and why should I care? Is this code for the author? Martin 20:52, 30 August 2003 (UTC)

Just because one might not care doesn't make it less worthy to include. Also, no, it is not my personal view. It is the controversial view of Reform Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum (1897-1976). (born in Vienna, served as rabbi at Bingen (Rhineland) and Berlin, and later emigrated to England.) The view mentioned was much read, and is from The Face of God After Auschwitz, pages 35 and 36. RK 01:59, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, RK :) Martin


What is "Yeted Ne'eman, 18 Tevet 5751 (1 April 1991)"?

A journal or newspaper? Or a hint at April's fool? All I know is that that the date of 18 Tevet 5751 was not in April 1991. Aleph4 23:02, 23 February 2004 (UTC)

I removed the sentence Those who are loyal to Rabbi Schach gave a reaction to this in Yeted Ne'eman, 18 Tevet 5751 (1 April 1991) from the paragraph with Schach's warning. First, the sentence is not informative -- it states that there was a reaction, but what exactly was it? (I would assume that those who are loyal to Rabbi Schach reacted to Schach's warning in a way that showed their loyalty, but even that does not tell us much.) Second, it is not explained what Yeted Ne'eman is. (A Google search indicates that it is the newspaper of Israel's United Torah party.) Third, the date "18 Tevet 5751 (1 April 1991)" is clearly wrong -- whoever wrote lacks basic familiarity with the Hebrew Calendar, so I suspect s/he is not an expert in Jewish theology, either. The month of Tevet usually begins in December; 18 Tevet 5751 was 1991-01-04, not 1991-04-01. Aleph4 14:47, 15 July 2004 (UTC)

Many or few

Many or Few?

It was stated that "Within evangelical Christianity, there are many who explain the Holocaust as part of the curse of Deuteronomy 28... ." "Many" was changed by Ungtss to "a few". In the absence of statistical data, the argument about the percentage or quantity of evangelicals who say this can only be determined anecdotally (based upon one's observations). I suggest that the difference of opinion between me and Ungtss is perhaps due to the different spheres in which we live. Why? Because in my theological camp (which is very pro-Israel and very pro-Jewish), there is little dispute that the Holocaust certainly wasn't an exhibit of God's blessings on the Jews, but definitely reflects the kinds of events that are predicted in the curse of Deuteronomy 28. In my extensive experience throughout the country in many churches and with many ministers in many evangelical denominations, I would say that this analysis is accurate for most of them. (But understand that they would say this without any animus toward those Jews nor out of any belief that those Jews who suffered were in any way personally deserving of such suffering; nor would they say it with any desire to diminish their contempt and loathing for Hitler, but with a feeling that he is definitely deserving of the hottest regions of hell.) In my experience, saying that few evangelicals hold this would have to be characterized as misleading at best, and utterly false at worst.

I do not suggest that Ungtss' experience does not substantiate his belief that only "a few" evangelicals hold to this. But even though "many" and "few" are relative terms, I believe that many is correct and few is wrong. For, "few" suggests that finding such people is rare, that they are an anomaly, and that their opinion does not naturally flow from evangelical premises and foundational convictions. Leaving the word "few" in the entry would naturally lead to that inference. And that would incorrect. Here is why. To reduce the premises of the evangelicals who hold this to a simple explanation, the following can be stated:

1. As God's chosen people, He promises to deal with the Jews on the basis of the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27-28.

2. The Jewish experiences of the Holocaust were horrible beyond description.

3. Therefore, the Holocaust reflected the curses of Deuteronomy 27-28, not the blessings.

Since most evangelicals (virtually all) take the Bible at face value and affirm that its statements are true (at least in some sense), I would expect that most evangelicals who examine the issue being disputed here would affirm these three statements made. However, to say that most evangelicals hold this would be saying more than can be fairly stated apart from an actual survey. And the truth is, most evangelicals have probably never really thought about the issue. But many have, and many agree. I believe that saying most hold this view would be overstating the issue, just as saying a few hold it is severely understating the issue.

But I fear that this discussion loses sight of the central thesis of the paragraph in which it is found: that the current experiences of the Jews do not reflect the extreme suffering of Deuteronomy 27-28, but the overall positive experiences of Deuteronomy 27-28, and that therefore, God's Chose People are no longer being "given up" to judgment, but that of necessity, the time of their full restoration to blessing is drawing near. On this point also, I would say that many (if not most) evangelicals agree.

Consequently, I will be changing the entry back to reading "many" after I have given time for more discussion on the issue. Chad A. Woodburn

well put points all ... although i won't lie to you, i grew up among evangelicals and have never EVER heard it before. in my circles, it would be considered almost fascist to suggest the God intended the holocaust ... punishing little baby girls for the sins of their ancestors, as he promised not to do in deuteronomy. How about we compromise with "Some"? Ungtss 02:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Many" and "few" both seem, frankly, to be "weasel-words". Are there statistics? If not, then "some" should be used. Even better would be naming some evangelicals who support this view. Please recall, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be our own interpretations of events, but rather should summarize the various significant positions. Jayjg 03:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the points of both of you (Ungtss and Jayjg), and had been thinking the same thing.

Jayjg, I read your user page and share your concerns about those who see Wikipedia as a forum for their propaganda, rather than for simply presenting "significant positions". My concern with the use of the word "few" is that it reduced that evangelical "Holocaust theology" viewpoint to an insignificant position, and therefore perhaps not significant enough to be include. However, the absence of statistics should not prevent the use of "many", since if those statistics existed, a percentage would be used instead. I don't need statistics to be able to say that "many preachers use the King James Version" or to say that "many evangelicals use the New International Version." To anyone who has had broad interaction with both preachers and evangelicals, these statements are in the "duh" category. And in a discussion on that topic, it would add nothing to the subject to "nam[e] some evangelicals who" reflect this practice. Frankly, to me the use of "many" in the entry was the same kind of "duh" statement.

Ungtss, thank you for your input. I think "some" would be good. Whether the view is considered fascist or not, the issue is whether it is common or not, not whether it is socially acceptable or not. For myself, it is a strain for me to believe that you have never ever heard of it before, and yet that you claim to have an informed evangelical background (ouch--I don't mean that as sarcasm). Surely you have heard of Calvinists, all of whom believe that God has decreed all that takes place. And even among many of the non-Calvinists and Arminian evangelicals, there are "many" who believe that all that happens has either been decreed by God or else has been specifically allowed by God (the permissive will of God). Most "Bible-believing" evangelicals fall into these two groups. For them, the connection between the Holocaust and Deut. 28 is a straight shot. In fact, the most reasonable, natural deduction is to assume that anyone who believes that God is directly involved in all that happens and that He has the power to do what He wants must also believe that God had a purpose in allowing the Holocaust. (That is, after all, a major point of this Wikipedia article on "Holocaust theology", which is trying to identify what that purpose is. The only other alternative is to say that God stood idly by doing nothing and yet had no reason to not get involved--a view fitting perhaps for Deists, but not intuitive for Theists.)

thank you for your articulate response -- i'm sorry if it sounded as tho i was implying the idea itself was fascist -- that was not my intent, although in hindsight it certainly looked that way. just food for thought: the calvinists i have known have indeed ascribed to hard-predestination ... but have stopped short of some of its implications, such as the idea that the holocaust was part of God's will. events such as the holocaust have caused me to question reformed theology ... and more broadly, augustinian theology in general, and have led me to another view: Open Theism ... but i can definitely understand and respect your viewpoint:). Ungtss 18:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again there is an objection to suggesting that anything other than a tiny minority of Evangelicals hold to this view. On Jan. 4, 2005 the entry was changed from "Some within the Evangelical camp" to "Some such as a small segment within the Evangelical camp." I consider this to be utterly misleading. It is by no means a small segment. Although perhaps most do not want to state the case this way (because they probably see it as offensive even though they don't mean it that way), the fact is that when the beliefs of Evangelicals about the Jews, about God's discipline and judgment, and about His sovereignty are put together, there is no way around it. It may be true that only a small segment within the Evangelical camp will come right out and say it bluntly, it is the unavoidable implication of their beliefs.

Since this disagreement here is obviously not going to go away, perhaps the way to handle this in a manner that is agreeable to all is to include the fact of disagreement about how many people hold to what in the statement of the issue. For example, it could be said that some within the Evangelical camp deny that there is any correlation between Deut. 28 and the Holocaust, while others hold that the correlation is clear. Those who deny the connection view the other side as fringe and a tiny minority, while those who see the connection view the other side as equivocating on the issue due to political correctness. How would the normal, informed Evangelical (who claims to believe the Bible) answer these questions: Does Deut. 27-28 state that if the Israelites (Jews) would obey God, He could bless them and protect them? Does it state that if they disobeyed Him, He would judge them? Do Evangelicals believe that the Jews are fully obeying God (in terms of His revelation in the New Testament)? Does the Holocaust fit the pattern of God blessing the Jews or judging them? I'm sorry, but I cannot see how anyone can honestly contend that only a small segment within the Evangelical camp can honestly hold that the connection between Deut. 28 and the Holocaust is not clear and strong. Chad A. Woodburn 6:43 pm EST, Jan. 4, 2005 (the 10th day of Christmas).

My original suggestion was to list significant groups or individuals who feel this way. If you could do that, preferably with links to them outlining these positions, I think it would go a long way to ending this battle over vague claims. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2005 (UTC)

11 million people

I added a more total death toll for the Holocaust.--Urbane legend 00:30, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Apparently Pope John Paul II once compared Auschwitz to a modern Gethsemane - presumably he meant that as the disciples fell asleep while Jesus prayed, so too the world slept as the horrors of Auschwitz happened. I wonder if this should be added to the Christian section of the article? - 14th December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.130 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus crucifiction

There is another christian theology about the holocaust, wich I see was not mentioned. And if you ask me it was the most important. But from what I understand the jewish people prefer to ignore this version, because it proves that they were wrong to crucify Jesus Christ. When Jesus was brought in front of them, by the governor Pilat, he told them that this man was not guilty, and he didn't think he should be crucified. But they all answered shouting that Jesus Christ should be crucified and that his blood should be uppon them and their children. The holocaust was thus the fullfilment of the curse that they themselves called upon them. If someone knows more about this please complete the Holocaust Theology article. Or if someone has time to search this. Otherwise I will return with more documentation and write the article myself. Would someone please post an answer here so that I will know. I don't know if I am writing in the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.69.169.151 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_theology/Archive_1"