If you want to pin the blame for what became anti-Semitism on someone, I think the Roman Empire is the most culpable candidate. Think politically. By the time of Constantine's "conversion" in 313, Christianity was growing like wildfire in the Mediterranean, the Roman Empire was in decline, and the Romans were in the awkward position of being persecutors of this new religion. What better way to cut your losses and consolidate your eroding gains in the Middle East than to embrace the new upcoming movement (Christianity), while demonizing the old established order (Judaism). So the early Christian church essentially made a pact with the devil; the Romans would cease persecution of Christians and assure their rise to dominance in the region, but the Christians must accept and include in their core scriptures polemics against the Jews (Constantine having considerable influence on what finally became, shortly after, the Christian canon); this, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew, the vast majority of early Christians were Jews, and the Romans were directly responsible for the execution of Jesus.
Correct me if I'm wrong JWS11, but are you angry for some reason about what you believe? What I read is Mom0 presenting substantial evidence which can be invalidated or validated, but in response to me, I see no counter evidence. Nothing other than aggressive denial on your part of anything which questions your position. Stating things such as.. "there are thousands of titles that contradict what he's saying", ...but to mention nor debate not a one is unavailing. Whilst MomoO cites many specific and pertinent papers and articles in support and confirmation of what he says. So what is it that is so offensive to you about that approach? You say what you believe as if it were a fact. Then expect rocks to be thown at you. To get aggressive and insulting as you do, is not equivalent nor valid as evidence to the standard MomoO produced. Your belief professes truth does it not? Yet there is no reason for me to accept anything you say, when what you do say, is only presented through innuendo or the contumely language of someone crying persecution of their belief one second and suggesting I believe what I want, only to ask, for no apposite reason, what I do or don't believe in the next. For what purpose...?.. Is that what you call decent and fruitful?