PDA

View Full Version : The New Testament is Anti-Semitic



Scrawly
11-05-2014, 08:29 PM
Here is a great little article written by Daniel B. Wallace exploring the charge of Anti-Semitism in the NT, enjoy:

https://bible.org/article/jew-first-new-testament-and-anti-semitism

KingsGambit
11-05-2014, 08:58 PM
A good article from a good scholar.

My seminary professor assigned an article a couple weeks ago that took a different tack altogether. The argument was that the word "Jews" in NT contexts is anachronistic because modern Judaism in its form did not exist then, and rather "Judeans" would be a more accurate translation, geographically limiting the context of the mentioned verses. I am not sure this works with the verse in Revelation where Jesus talks about the "synagogue of Satan" (and I'm surprised Wallace didn't mention it). (Of course, we know quite obviously that Jesus did not hate Jews...)

Raphael
11-05-2014, 09:05 PM
:popcorn:

JohnnyP
11-07-2014, 01:40 PM
It's kind of like, it's ok for black people to call each other the "N" word, but not ok and racist for white people to do it. Jewish rabbis routinely teach that Jews were to blame for destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and Rome, but if Gentiles or their New Testament -- because it is mostly accepted by Gentile Christians not Jews -- do much the same, it's often considered antisemitic.

A decent Jewish summary of how Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Sicarii were divided and hating each other, where if they had been seeking God instead they may have been prospering for 2000 years instead of exiled and persecuted:



While the First Temple was destroyed due to idol worship, illicit relationships and murder, our Sages attribute the destruction of the Second Temple to the baseless hatred that prevailed among the Jews. If the Jews had been united, they would have merited G‑d's protection. They would have withstood the Romans. It was the factionalism among Jews that ultimately brought about the destruction of the Second Temple. -Chabad (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/953558/jewish/The-Four-Factions.htm)

The NT simply illustrates this idea further that because of their hatred of each other, they also hated the Messiah who could have united them under God in an everlasting kingdom free of Gentile control, so it's no more antisemitic than what Jews say themselves. The OT/Tanach is filled with condemnations of unrighteous Jews as idolatrous harlots and wicked anyway, and is much harsher on them than the NT is.

For those reasons I think the bible.org article goes too far in trying to be politically correct by taking nearly all the heat off Jews with statements like, "Are the Jews the only ones responsible for the death of Jesus? Hardly. From a divine perspective, we could say that God is responsible..." Chabad and other Jewish sources don't even whitewash 1st century events that much.

Scrawly
11-07-2014, 08:25 PM
..those reasons I think the bible.org article goes too far in trying to be politically correct by taking nearly all the heat off Jews with statements like, "Are the Jews the only ones responsible for the death of Jesus? Hardly. From a divine perspective, we could say that God is responsible..." Chabad and other Jewish sources don't even whitewash 1st century events that much..

I don't think Wallace was trying to whitewash anything. The Bible does teach that it was the will of God for Jesus to die a sacrificial death. Jesus himself stated: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father. (John. 10:17-18).

JohnnyP
11-08-2014, 02:11 AM
Well you can look at it like God wants everyone to be tortured and killed as a martyr. Or you can see it how it really is, God would rather not, but He rewards those who are.

Scrawly
11-08-2014, 02:30 AM
Well you can look at it like God wants everyone to be tortured and killed as a martyr. Or you can see it how it really is, God would rather not, but He rewards those who are.

Sorry, what? I was talking about Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, thereby fulfilling the will of the Father. So, as Wallace stated, from a divine perspective, God was ultimately indeed responsible.

JohnnyP
11-08-2014, 02:49 AM
Sorry, what? I was talking about Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, thereby fulfilling the will of the Father. So, as Wallace stated, from a divine perspective, God was ultimately indeed responsible.

Nope, if you are atheist and your peers committed crimes you knew about, and they told you to shut up about them and you didn't, and they killed you for it, they would still be at fault.

So the will of the Father was not shutting up, the blame still goes to the killers.

Scrawly
11-08-2014, 03:55 AM
Nope, if you are atheist and your peers committed crimes you knew about, and they told you to shut up about them and you didn't, and they killed you for it, they would still be at fault.

So the will of the Father was not shutting up, the blame still goes to the killers.

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts. 4:27-28).

Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible comments:

"..For to do whatsoever thy hand...It was not the end of their gathering together against Christ, or it was not their intention and design, to fulfil the purposes and decrees of God, but to fulfil their own lusts, and satiate their rage and malice against him; but it was so in the event, according to the wise disposal of providence, that by their gathering together, by their consultations and conspiracies, they brought about what God in his everlasting council had decreed.."

Scrawly
11-08-2014, 03:59 AM
PS: I am not absolving those who put Christ to death of their responsibility. I believe they are guilty. I am merely highlighting the death of Christ from God's perspective, as taught in the Scriptures - His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins.

seanD
11-08-2014, 01:28 PM
The easiest way to debunk this argument is to compare the New Testament to the Old testament, where Israel and the Jewish people are continuously reviled and compared to whores, harlots, adulterers (Ezekiel is practically pornographic in its castigation). We know for a fact the Old Testament was written by Jews so antisemitism can't be the issue.

KingsGambit
11-08-2014, 01:33 PM
Also, Paul says that he loves the Jewish people so much that he wishes he could give up his own salvation for theirs. That's not exactly what I call a hatred for the Jews.

JohnnyP
11-09-2014, 01:33 PM
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Acts. 4:27-28).

Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible comments:

"..For to do whatsoever thy hand...It was not the end of their gathering together against Christ, or it was not their intention and design, to fulfil the purposes and decrees of God, but to fulfil their own lusts, and satiate their rage and malice against him; but it was so in the event, according to the wise disposal of providence, that by their gathering together, by their consultations and conspiracies, they brought about what God in his everlasting council had decreed.."


PS: I am not absolving those who put Christ to death of their responsibility. I believe they are guilty. I am merely highlighting the death of Christ from God's perspective, as taught in the Scriptures - His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins.

I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it. The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.

Jesus didn't have to die either, he could have run off or bowed to Jews and Romans. But he prayed in Gethsemane to align his will with God's and went on to be martyred. It wasn't made to happen in that sense, but an omniscient God knew it would happen.

So I have a problem with using "responsibility" in the same context since it amounts to arguments like this:

Parents are responsible for procreating children they know will probably do wrong and eventually die. Thus parents are responsible for wrongdoing and deaths of their children.

Truthseeker
11-09-2014, 03:27 PM
I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it.Why would God having foreknowledge be a good point if He does not have the power to determine the future of the universe anyway (either that, or the universe is determinate right from its beginning anyway)? If indeed the future is fixed though we cannot know that directly, does that not render nugatory whatever willpower we have?



The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.Offer? What offer? Didn't Jesus pray, Father, your will be done? (Oh, I see you did mention that, just below in your post.)

JohnnyP
11-09-2014, 03:51 PM
Why would God having foreknowledge be a good point if He does not have the power to determine the future of the universe anyway (either that, or the universe is determinate right from its beginning anyway)?

Where God "responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised" means God can intervene on human free will to direct it to a conclusion. Just because we have free will doesn't mean we can change the endgame, for example, willing ourselves never to die. We can exercise free will in the meantime, but for most of us, the end is going to be the same no matter what we want.


If indeed the future is fixed though we cannot know that directly, does that not render nugatory whatever willpower we have?

The past, present, and future are always going to be fixed and are always going to be what they are going to be, in that sense. Anyone knowing about it or not. That doesn't mean our free will can't shape what they're going to be.


Offer? What offer? Didn't Jesus pray, Father, your will be done? (Oh, I see you did mention that, just below in your post.)

It would be the offer Jesus was praying about, yes.

Scrawly
11-09-2014, 09:10 PM
I don't believe God the Father determined human will, but responded to human free will that was destined to be exercised according to His foreknowledge of it. The response of course being the offer to Jesus that if he obeyed the Father until the death, he would be worthy of being king and judge with power to grant mercy and save people from dying in their sins. Which is how salvation is actually accomplished, it's not as simple as a penal-substitution kind of human sacrifice, which is the broad stroke often used to explain it.

Jesus didn't have to die either, he could have run off or bowed to Jews and Romans. But he prayed in Gethsemane to align his will with God's and went on to be martyred. It wasn't made to happen in that sense, but an omniscient God knew it would happen.

So I have a problem with using "responsibility" in the same context since it amounts to arguments like this:

Parents are responsible for procreating children they know will probably do wrong and eventually die. Thus parents are responsible for wrongdoing and deaths of their children.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is absolutely multifaceted, however, I believe penal substitution is a critical component to a proper understanding of the gospel. Although at this point we are veering too far off topic, so I will just highlight a few verses that come to mind here, and take from it what you will:

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:22)

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:4).

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:28)

In the context of Hebrews 9:18-28 the author argues very forcefully that the animal sacrifices were necessarily inadequate; but that Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, which he bore the sins of many, was indeed sufficient for the remission of their sins and for securing their unshakeable hope of eternal salvation.

Some other verses you may wish to look at are: Romans 3:25-26; I Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; and Galatians 3:10-14.

This is as far as I will go on this off-topic though. :smile:

JohnnyP
11-09-2014, 11:23 PM
I believe that the atonement of Christ is absolutely multifaceted, however, I believe penal substitution is a critical component to a proper understanding of the gospel. Although at this point we are veering too far off topic, so I will just highlight a few verses that come to mind here, and take from it what you will:

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:22)

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:4).

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:28)

In the context of Hebrews 9:18-28 the author argues very forcefully that the animal sacrifices were necessarily inadequate; but that Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, which he bore the sins of many, was indeed sufficient for the remission of their sins and for securing their unshakeable hope of eternal salvation.

Some other verses you may wish to look at are: Romans 3:25-26; I Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; and Galatians 3:10-14.

This is as far as I will go on this off-topic though. :smile:

I wouldn't say his sacrifice is a fulfillment of the Law though, the Law never called for Jews and Romans to sacrifice a human, so it's not as simple as replacing ourselves with a goat:



Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

So rather than calling it a penal substitution, I'd explain it more like I said, Jesus obeyed the Father to the death so he'd be given the power to grant us mercy. Especially when discussing with non-believers who like to point out that ritual human sacrifice is something that turns most people off.

Scrawly
11-10-2014, 12:06 AM
I wouldn't say his sacrifice is a fulfillment of the Law though, the Law never called for Jews and Romans to sacrifice a human, so it's not as simple as replacing ourselves with a goat:




So rather than calling it a penal substitution, I'd explain it more like I said, Jesus obeyed the Father to the death so he'd be given the power to grant us mercy. Especially when discussing with non-believers who like to point out that ritual human sacrifice is something that turns most people off.

1) We as human beings have no right to sacrifice another human being for our sins. Only God has the absolute right to give life and take it away. Because the penalty for sin is death (Ezekiel 18:4), God, in His great mercy, provided His own sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world. His own Son willingly suffered the death penalty for us.

2) The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son, foreshadows God’s willingness to sacrifice his own Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus.

JohnnyP
11-10-2014, 01:20 AM
1) We as human beings have no right to sacrifice another human being for our sins. Only God has the absolute right to give life and take it away. Because the penalty for sin is death (Ezekiel 18:4), God, in His great mercy, provided His own sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world. His own Son willingly suffered the death penalty for us.

I still wouldn't explain it quite like that. The death penalty for humans is either going to be annihilation as I believe, or eternal torment as others believe, in the Lake of Fire. Most of us will probably die a physical death as Jesus did, one way or another.

So the deal still isn't a one-for-many punishment of Jesus and that's it, all done. There are also qualifications to it:



John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So I would still put it like I said, which is that Jesus obeyed the Father to the death even though his own humanity may have rather told him not to, so that he could be worthy of being Judge to give us mercy if we believe and ask for it.


2) The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son, foreshadows God’s willingness to sacrifice his own Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus.

In a way although circumstances were different. The omniscient God knew Jesus would live, Abraham had to go by faith. It's still not like an animal sacrifice.

Scrawly
11-10-2014, 01:32 AM
Thanks for your thoughts JP. This is as far off track as I would like to take it. Thanks again. :smile:

Scrawly
11-10-2014, 03:52 AM
knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pet. 1:18-19). :tongue: :lol:

JohnnyP
11-10-2014, 02:59 PM
knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pet. 1:18-19). :tongue: :lol:

Yes, I agree that's a shorthand way of saying it, but since we're in the Judaism area I'll illustrate what kind of problems this can cause if we don't elaborate:



IN SHORT... What, EXACTLY does Gd say about human sacrifice in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible? In Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Gd calls human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him...This teaches that Gd would not accept Jesus' death on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that Gd would accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is unbiblical. -Rabbi Federow (http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation4.html)



So I'll elaborate again about it:

The Old Covenant sacrifice by the Levite Priesthood was only a shadow and symbolic of the New Covenant foreshadowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood ministering bread and wine to Abraham. Where bread/flesh is symbolic of the Word of God, and wine/blood is symbolic of the New Covenant:



Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The blood shedding here is the result of Jesus remaining obedient to the Father in the face of death:



Hebrews 5:8-10 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Then his obedience enabled him to be the author of salvation, that is, to be the Judge who can give us mercy and forgiveness for our sins:



2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

So the longhand way to explain it is, the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus in obedience to the Father was a means to get into the position to minister a Melchizedek Priesthood of bread and wine where the real work of salvation begins:



BREAD/WORD OF GOD/MESSAGE OF REPENTANCE

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

WINE/NEW COVENANT/FORGIVENESS OF SIN

Abolishing the curse of death on everyone for Adam's sin:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Forgiveness of our own sins if we repent:

Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:34 ...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Scrawly
11-10-2014, 11:31 PM
Yes, I agree that's a shorthand way of saying it, but since we're in the Judaism area I'll illustrate what kind of problems this can cause if we don't elaborate:






So I'll elaborate again about it:

The Old Covenant sacrifice by the Levite Priesthood was only a shadow and symbolic of the New Covenant foreshadowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood ministering bread and wine to Abraham. Where bread/flesh is symbolic of the Word of God, and wine/blood is symbolic of the New Covenant:




The blood shedding here is the result of Jesus remaining obedient to the Father in the face of death:




Then his obedience enabled him to be the author of salvation, that is, to be the Judge who can give us mercy and forgiveness for our sins:




So the longhand way to explain it is, the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus in obedience to the Father was a means to get into the position to minister a Melchizedek Priesthood of bread and wine where the real work of salvation begins:




I think its best to highlight that the Hebrew scriptures, including the Talmud, teach that the death of the righteous has atoning power. Indeed, when Yeshua the Messiah, the totally righteous one, laid down his life, it was the ultimate act of atonement in human history. Feel free to read Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael brown deal with this Jewish and Islamic objection here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/atonement1.htm

JohnnyP
11-11-2014, 03:47 AM
I think its best to highlight that the Hebrew scriptures, including the Talmud, teach that the death of the righteous has atoning power. Indeed, when Yeshua the Messiah, the totally righteous one, laid down his life, it was the ultimate act of atonement in human history. Feel free to read Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael brown deal with this Jewish and Islamic objection here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/atonement1.htm

I read that and the article you sent me, for example: "These Jews obviously believed that their deaths did have an effect upon the nation, and even beseeched God to accept their martyrdom as atonement for Israel’s sins!"

Yes but we have to consider, who is giving the atonement?


2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

If it is Jesus, then the atoning comes in as, he was obedient to the Father to the death, then Jesus was found worthy to be Judge of our sins and give us mercy, THEN we receive atonement.

We're saying the same thing, he died for us, except you're skipping the step of Jesus judging and giving atonement to the quick and the dead, and going right from death to atoning. If you insist that sins are atoned for by his death alone like a scapegoat, when does Jesus get a chance to judge or give mercy to anyone?

Scrawly
11-11-2014, 04:41 AM
I read that and the article you sent me, for example: "These Jews obviously believed that their deaths did have an effect upon the nation, and even beseeched God to accept their martyrdom as atonement for Israel’s sins!"

Yes but we have to consider, who is giving the atonement?


2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

If it is Jesus, then the atoning comes in as, he was obedient to the Father to the death, then Jesus was found worthy to be Judge of our sins and give us mercy, THEN we receive atonement.

We're saying the same thing, he died for us, except you're skipping the step of Jesus judging and giving atonement to the quick and the dead, and going right from death to atoning. If you insist that sins are atoned for by his death alone like a scapegoat, when does Jesus get a chance to judge or give mercy to anyone?

Thanks for reading the articles! If you wish to further discuss the atonement it'd be best to start a new thread.

Thanks!

JohnnyP
11-11-2014, 05:28 AM
Thanks for reading the articles! If you wish to further discuss the atonement it'd be best to start a new thread.

Thanks!

Ok I copied some of this to new thread in Apologetics:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4305-Atonement-or-Human-Sacrifice-on-the-Cross

shunyadragon
11-13-2014, 01:23 PM
Here is a great little article written by Daniel B. Wallace exploring the charge of Anti-Semitism in the NT, enjoy:

https://bible.org/article/jew-first-new-testament-and-anti-semitism

I do not believe that the article nor the posts that follow successfully address the issues. The New Testament should not necessarily be called anti-semitic, but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present.

The article begins with this quote.

In Rom 1.16, Paul tells the Christians at Rome that he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”

First problem is I do not consider this quote representative of the relationship between Christians and Jews in the NT since it only refers to Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ.

The controversy did not begin with Mel Gibson's Movie.

JohnnyP
11-13-2014, 05:11 PM
...but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present

If opposition to mainstream Judaism alone means antisemitism then Bahá'í is as guilty as the NT of it.

That powers took control of much of the world and called themselves Christian doesn't mean anything. Powers took control of Jerusalem and were wicked and God sent Babylon and Rome to smite them. So God must be inherently antisemitic?

I think rather if we look at Jews with solemn respect for what they gave us while still disagreeing with the majority of them today, we are ok.

shunyadragon
11-13-2014, 05:47 PM
If opposition to mainstream Judaism alone means antisemitism then Bahá'í is as guilty as the NT of it.

No that is not what anti-semitism represents in any shape or form.


That powers took control of much of the world and called themselves Christian doesn't mean anything. Powers took control of Jerusalem and were wicked and God sent Babylon and Rome to smite them. So God must be inherently antisemitic?

Sounds like grade D movie on the trilateral conspiracy and does not address the problem of anti-semitism in the history up to the present including Billy Graham. I guess you consider Christianity under control of the forces of the dark ones


I think rather if we look at Jews with solemn respect for what they gave us while still disagreeing with the majority of them today, we are ok.

OK, I commend you, but I do not think this addresses the problem either.

JohnnyP
11-15-2014, 09:25 AM
No that is not what anti-semitism represents in any shape or form.

If it's not just opposing theologies...both OT/NT are Jews talking about Jews, what in the NT is more antisemitic than something like this, where God has Gentiles attacking Jews because they are idolatrous harlots?


Ezekiel 23:11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

Ezekiel 23:22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Ezekiel 23:23 The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them: all of them desirable young men, captains and rulers, great lords and renowned, all of them riding upon horses.


Sounds like grade D movie on the trilateral conspiracy and does not address the problem of anti-semitism in the history up to the present including Billy Graham. I guess you consider Christianity under control of the forces of the dark ones.

Sure a lot of it has been, from Inquisitions to Hitler. Many Christians have behaved badly, many Jews have behaved badly like there in Ezekiel. Calling it like it is doesn't make one antichristian or antisemitic.


OK, I commend you, but I do not think this addresses the problem either.

It's not an OT or NT problem, it's a human problem.

shunyadragon
11-15-2014, 09:07 PM
It's not an OT or NT problem, it's a human problem.

It is not an OT problem and it is not simply a human problem. It is definitely a problem in the NT, historically in Christianity and Islam. Citing OT texts about the conflicts of the ancients is meaningless. Specifically antisemitism is a more recent anti-Jewish hatred in Christianity and Islam.



Martin Luther and 'The Jews and Their Lies'

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.

* * *
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly * and I myself was unaware of it * will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe*conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

JohnnyP
11-16-2014, 06:34 PM
It is not an OT problem and it is not simply a human problem. It is definitely a problem in the NT, historically in Christianity and Islam. Citing OT texts about the conflicts of the ancients is meaningless. Specifically antisemitism is a more recent anti-Jewish hatred in Christianity and Islam.

Gentiles and Jews have been hating on each other ever since Ishmael teased Isaac, religions with mostly Gentile adherents other than Christianity have come and gone and there's always been an excuse for hatred between the two, so it's naive to think that the NT is the root of it all.

Besides, verses like these in the NT warn Gentiles not to be hateful of Jews, so the fact remains that the NT isn't any more antisemitic than the OT which uses a lot harsher words for Jews strayed from God:


Romans 11:25-28 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Thus again, that people like Luther have cherrypicked from the NT as an excuse for antisemitism isn't an NT problem, it's a human problem, this happens in all religions. It's simply more glaring with Christianity since it's had such power and control for centuries, and because it had more adherents than any other. If Christianity never came along and much of the Gentile world accepted the OT then you'd probably see many Gentiles twist the OT to say that Jews are evil harlots and Gentiles are God's chosen based on verses like Isaiah 11:10.

Heck Jews even accuse each other of being antisemites, where Ultra-Orthodox like Neturei Karta oppose Zionism and are accused of hating Jews, and the religious accuse secular Jews of trying to destroy Judaism.


The black-garbed Jews who appear in support of anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic events are known as “Neturei Karta.” -Source (http://archive.adl.org/extremism/karta/#.VGlKxWc0_M8)

And if we insist on blaming books, then we can argue the Vedas are responsible for antisemitism as well, especially since Nazi Aryanism and even the swastika came straight out of Hindu not Christian theologies:


According to the survey 19% of Hindus hold anti-Semitic beliefs. At least one-fourth of the Hindu respondents were aware of the Holocaust. Amongst those who had heard of the Holocaust, 48% considered the number of Jewish victims to be greatly exaggerated, and 11% considered the Holocaust to be a myth. -Source (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/adl-global-100-survey-anti-semitism-hinduism-india/)

So yeah, I don't see any valid basis for your argument, even though it is convenient to blame the NT.

shunyadragon
11-16-2014, 08:15 PM
Gentiles and Jews have been hating on each other ever since Ishmael teased Isaac, religions with mostly Gentile adherents other than Christianity have come and gone and there's always been an excuse for hatred between the two, so it's naive to think that the NT is the root of it all.

Besides, verses like these in the NT warn Gentiles not to be hateful of Jews, so the fact remains that the NT isn't any more antisemitic than the OT which uses a lot harsher words for Jews strayed from God:


Romans 11:25-28 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Thus again, that people like Luther have cherrypicked from the NT as an excuse for antisemitism isn't an NT problem, it's a human problem, this happens in all religions. It's simply more glaring with Christianity since it's had such power and control for centuries, and because it had more adherents than any other. If Christianity never came along and much of the Gentile world accepted the OT then you'd probably see many Gentiles twist the OT to say that Jews are evil harlots and Gentiles are God's chosen based on verses like Isaiah 11:10.

Heck Jews even accuse each other of being antisemites, where Ultra-Orthodox like Neturei Karta oppose Zionism and are accused of hating Jews, and the religious accuse secular Jews of trying to destroy Judaism.


The black-garbed Jews who appear in support of anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic events are known as “Neturei Karta.” -Source (http://archive.adl.org/extremism/karta/#.VGlKxWc0_M8)

And if we insist on blaming books, then we can argue the Vedas are responsible for antisemitism as well, especially since Nazi Aryanism and even the swastika came straight out of Hindu not Christian theologies:


According to the survey 19% of Hindus hold anti-Semitic beliefs. At least one-fourth of the Hindu respondents were aware of the Holocaust. Amongst those who had heard of the Holocaust, 48% considered the number of Jewish victims to be greatly exaggerated, and 11% considered the Holocaust to be a myth. -Source (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/adl-global-100-survey-anti-semitism-hinduism-india/)

So yeah, I don't see any valid basis for your argument, even though it is convenient to blame the NT.

You actually missed the point and the context of my first statements, and chose to cherry pick quotes and accuss others of cherry picking. I said that the NT is not necessarily antisemitic, and you cannot dodge the fact that antisemitism is an inherent problem in the history of Christianity since Constantine, and the source is their view is the NT. I can parade the evidence all the way up until recently and over the centuries of the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews, and obvious antisemitic views within Christianity even citations by Billy Graham. You may continue to accuse them of cherry picking, but you're accusing all the history of Christianity of cherry picking and it goes nowhere..

The problems in the OT, Hinduism (Hinduism never actively slaughtered, and ethnic cleansed Jews) and Hitler bent cross, are not the issue. The problem is an intense history of antisemitism in Christianity up until recently based on the NT.

JohnnyP
11-17-2014, 02:21 PM
If the NT isn't necessarily antisemitic then I don't know what you meant by "the problem is in the NT."

No one denies Christianity was present, but since antisemitism has been an inherent problem among Gentiles ever since there were such a thing as Jews, then to place blame on whatever banner they happen to march under at any point in history -- whether it favors Osiris, Baal, or Apollo -- is largely a red herring. That one particular religion is dominant among Gentiles when antisemitism is apparent, if antisemitism has been a problem all along, isn't saying much about the religion. It is saying something about Gentiles who will twist whatever's popular into an excuse for antisemitism.

And Hindu ideas of Aryanism were most definitely adapted by Nazis to justify ethnic cleansing, repackaged along with Neopaganism into a state religion of Positive Christianity. To ignore the role of Hinduism and place all blame on Christianity is a double standard and factually inaccurate as well.

But like I said I'm not sure what your point is.

shunyadragon
11-17-2014, 03:14 PM
If the NT isn't necessarily antisemitic then I don't know what you meant by "the problem is in the NT."

No one denies Christianity was present, but since antisemitism has been an inherent problem among Gentiles ever since there were such a thing as Jews, then to place blame on whatever banner they happen to march under at any point in history -- whether it favors Osiris, Baal, or Apollo -- is largely a red herring. That one particular religion is dominant among Gentiles when antisemitism is apparent, if antisemitism has been a problem all along, isn't saying much about the religion. It is saying something about Gentiles who will twist whatever's popular into an excuse for antisemitism.

And Hindu ideas of Aryanism were most definitely adapted by Nazis to justify ethnic cleansing, repackaged along with Neopaganism into a state religion of Positive Christianity. To ignore the role of Hinduism and place all blame on Christianity is a double standard and factually inaccurate as well.

Lets change the term in the actual problem in Christian history as distinctly anti-Jewish persecution, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of Jews in history from Constantine to the 20th century to the citations in the NT. Focusing on the subject more specifically avoides the higher fog index of what may be called anti-semitism in a broader vaguer context..

Actually no, anti-Jewish has not been a problem in Hinduism and the OT. It is specifically related to citations in the NT that were interpreted throughout Christian history as anti-Jewish in the persecution, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of Jews.

This clarifies the view that the NT is not necessarily anti-semitic.

JohnnyP
11-17-2014, 07:52 PM
Lets change the term in the actual problem in Christian history as distinctly anti-Jewish persecution, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of Jews in history from Constantine to the 20th century to the citations in the NT. Focusing on the subject more specifically avoides the higher fog index of what may be called anti-semitism in a broader vaguer context..

Actually no, anti-Jewish has not been a problem in Hinduism and the OT. It is specifically related to citations in the NT that were interpreted throughout Christian history as anti-Jewish in the persecution, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of Jews.

This clarifies the view that the NT is not necessarily anti-semitic.

I wouldn't say interpreted, manipulated is the more proper term. Nazis manipulated Hindu, Christian, and Neopagan theologies to form an Aryanist hybrid state religion against Jews.

That still doesn't show that there's anything in the NT that's not said in the OT. I can twist stuff around too in order to make it sound like all Jews are damned and Gentiles are chosen:


Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Like I said, all that shows is that various Gentiles in history have cherrypicked the Bible to make it say what they want, it doesn't mean that the Bible is antisemitic or anti-Jewish.

shunyadragon
11-17-2014, 08:18 PM
I wouldn't say interpreted, manipulated is the more proper term. Nazis manipulated Hindu, Christian, and Neopagan theologies to form an Aryanist hybrid state religion against Jews.

That still doesn't show that there's anything in the NT that's not said in the OT. I can twist stuff around too in order to make it sound like all Jews are damned and Gentiles are chosen:


Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Like I said, all that shows is that various Gentiles in history have cherrypicked the Bible to make it say what they want, it doesn't mean that the Bible is antisemitic or anti-Jewish.

It shows that the history of Christianity is dominately anti-Jewish since Constantine based on the New Testament. The death of millions over the millennia is a witness to this and the documents of the Churches.

JohnnyP
11-17-2014, 10:15 PM
It shows that the history of Christianity is dominately anti-Jewish since Constantine based on the New Testament. The death of millions over the millennia is a witness to this and the documents of the Churches.

You're still arguing that people can twist anything to suit their own agendas, sure, we agree. Like much anti-Jewishness of Nazis was based on twisting of Hindu concepts that had nothing to do with Christianity.

If antisemitism appeared out of nowhere with Christianity you may have a point, but it's been with Gentiles from Egyptians, Babylonians, Seleucids, Romans...this is a Gentile problem not a religious problem.

shunyadragon
11-18-2014, 06:24 AM
You're still arguing that people can twist anything to suit their own agendas, sure, we agree. Like much anti-Jewishness of Nazis was based on twisting of Hindu concepts that had nothing to do with Christianity.

Hitler may have done this, but it is not the issue. You have hundreds of years of slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and persecution that have nothing to do with Hitler. Please read Martin Luther's Essay. Hitler followed it to the letter. Hitler could not have achieved what he did without the cooperation and involvement of the German people, who have a long history of anti-Jewish pogroms.


If antisemitism appeared out of nowhere with Christianity you may have a point, but it's been with Gentiles from Egyptians, Babylonians, Seleucids, Romans...this is a Gentile problem not a religious problem.

Back again the problem is anti-Jewish, and not the broader foggier antisemitism. I already said, '. . . the NT is not necessarily antisemitic.' The problem specifically 'anti-Jewish.' You're ducking the real problem. AGAIN IT IS NOT ANTISEMITISM in the broader context. The references in the Bible are not antisemetic, they are 'anti-Jewish.'

JohnnyP
11-18-2014, 09:20 AM
Hitler may have done this, but it is not the issue. You have hundreds of years of slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and persecution that have nothing to do with Hitler. Please read Martin Luther's Essay. Hitler followed it to the letter. Hitler could not have achieved what he did without the cooperation and involvement of the German people, who have a long history of anti-Jewish pogroms.

Luther cited NT and OT, he could have skipped the NT and cited OT verses like Jeremiah 3 calling Jews treacherous harlots. In fact it's the OT that calls for destruction of Jews by Gentile forces like Babylon, not the NT. The NT tells us to love and pray for enemies, be harmless as doves, and not arrogant against Jews as I cited from Romans 11.

If you want to argue that Luther and Hitler saw themselves as Gentile Nebuchadnezzars doing God's work of punishing Jews as an idea they got from the OT I'd say that's possible, but nothing in the NT instructs Gentiles to act that way.


Back again the problem is anti-Jewish, and not the broader foggier antisemitism. I already said, '. . . the NT is not necessarily antisemitic.' The problem specifically 'anti-Jewish.' You're ducking the real problem. AGAIN IT IS NOT ANTISEMITISM in the broader context. The references in the Bible are not antisemetic, they are 'anti-Jewish.'

Antisemitism can be against Jewishness for racial, cultural, or religious reasons. I'm not sure what the difference is unless you are just trying to say it's not against all Semites of the Middle East. Which of course we should all know that the modern usage is applied to Jews only.

And again I'm not ducking that many Christians have been antisemitic, but first Gentiles have been that way ever since there were Jews, second there's no basis to pin any significant blame on the NT for reasons stated.

If anything we've seen the OT inform Gentiles on treatment of Jews, much as the OT was used to justify slavery in recent centuries.

shunyadragon
11-18-2014, 11:12 AM
Luther cited NT and OT, he could have skipped the NT and cited OT verses like Jeremiah 3 calling Jews treacherous harlots. In fact it's the OT that calls for destruction of Jews by Gentile forces like Babylon, not the NT. The NT tells us to love and pray for enemies, be harmless as doves, and not arrogant against Jews as I cited from Romans 11.

This all fine and nice, but it does not reflect the reality of the historical use of the NT in Christianity, particularly in Europe.


If you want to argue that Luther and Hitler saw themselves as Gentile Nebuchadnezzars doing God's work of punishing Jews as an idea they got from the OT I'd say that's possible, but nothing in the NT instructs Gentiles to act that way.

It is not only Hitler and Martin Luther, but the whole history of Christianity since Constantine. I acknowledge that many are interpreting the NT differently in recent history. but your neglecting the facts that it a long term endemic problem in Christianity based on NT citations, and in places remains a problem today.




Antisemitism can be against Jewishness for racial, cultural, or religious reasons. I'm not sure what the difference is unless you are just trying to say it's not against all Semites of the Middle East. Which of course we should all know that the modern usage is applied to Jews only.

Your references refer outside the basic issue, which is anti-Jewish slaughter, ethnic cleansing, persecution and prejudice in Christian history against specifically Jews in Christian history. The question is not whether your opinion as to whether it was justified or not. It is a fact of history that this view dominated European Christian history up until the mid twentieth century. The wide spread 'Passion plays' in Europe is a good witness to the problem, and is still a problem and issue in some paces like in Eastern Europe.


And again I'm not ducking that many Christians have been antisemitic, but first Gentiles have been that way ever since there were Jews, second there's no basis to pin any significant blame on the NT for reasons stated.

Again and again we are not talking about the broader problem of antisemitism. The issue is anti-Judaism. The fact is the Christians did use the references in the NT to justify anti-Jewish, slaughter, ethnic cleansing and persecution for 2,000 years. Facts are facts, your opinion as to whether the NT is to blame or not does not change history.


If anything we've seen the OT inform Gentiles on treatment of Jews, much as the OT was used to justify slavery in recent centuries.Yes slavery is another unfortunate issue, but at present the OT is not an issue in my argument,

Yeah, justification of slavery

robrecht
11-18-2014, 12:18 PM
Shuny, is this an authentic Baha'i source?


"... The Jews suffered for 2,000 years for persecuting Christ, "The Son of God," for 3 years; the Moslems and the Arabs persecuted Bahá'u'lláh, "the Father," for 50 years, so they will suffer more and endure greater sufferings. ..."

http://bahai-library.com/brown_haifa_notes

shunyadragon
11-18-2014, 03:38 PM
Shuny, is this an authentic Baha'i source?


"... The Jews suffered for 2,000 years for persecuting Christ, "The Son of God," for 3 years; the Moslems and the Arabs persecuted Bahá'u'lláh, "the Father," for 50 years, so they will suffer more and endure greater sufferings. ..."

http://bahai-library.com/brown_haifa_notes

I do not believe it is. Charles Manson broke away and does his own thing. I may check this out a little more.

robrecht
11-18-2014, 04:23 PM
I do not believe it is. Charles Manson broke away and does his own thing. I may check this out a little more.
Charles Manson? I do hope you check it out a little more than just a throwaway line about Charles Manson.

robrecht
11-18-2014, 05:40 PM
How about this, is it a valid Baha'i source?


"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Or this?


" ... What harm could come from a statement by the Jews that Jesus was also a Manifestation of the Word of God? Have the Christians suffered for their belief in Moses? Have they experienced any loss of religious enthusiasm or witnessed any defeat in their religious belief by declaring that Moses was a Prophet of God, that the Torah was a Book of God and that all the prophets of Israel were prophets of God? It is evident that no loss comes from this. And now it is time for the Jews to declare that Christ was the Word of God, and then this enmity between two great religions will pass away. For two thousand years this enmity and religious prejudice have continued. Blood has been shed, ordeals have been suffered. These few words will remedy the difficulty and unite two great religions. What harm could follow this: that just as the Christians glorify and praise the name of Moses, likewise the Jews should commemorate the name of Christ, declare Him to be the Word of God and consider Him as one of the chosen Messengers of God?"

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-120.html.utf8?

Or this?


Through failing to understand the meaning of the prophecies about the dominion of the Messiah, the Jews rejected Christ. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:—
The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent. When Jesus came they denounced and slew Him, saying: “This is not the One for Whom we wait. ..."

Thus the Jews thought and spoke, for they did not understand the Scriptures nor the glorious truths that were contained in them. The letter they knew by heart, but of the life-giving Spirit they understood not a word.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-170.html.utf8?

Or this?


The greatest cause of bereavement and disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation. It is due to this that wars and battles prevail; from this cause hatred and animosity arise continually among mankind. Through failure to investigate reality the Jews rejected His Holiness Jesus Christ. They were expecting his coming; by day and night they mourned and lamented, saying, “O God! hasten thou the day of the advent of Christ,” expressing most intense longing for the Messiah but when His Holiness Christ appeared they denied and rejected him, treated him with arrogant contempt, sentenced him to death and finally crucified him. Why did this happen? Because they were blindly following imitations, believing that which had descended to them as a heritage from their fathers and ancestors; tenaciously holding to it and refusing to investigate the reality of Christ. Therefore they were deprived of the bounties of His Holiness whereas if they had forsaken imitations and investigated the reality of the Messiah they would have surely been guided to believing in him.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this?


This was realized when peoples of all religions, nationalities and dispositions became united in their beliefs and followed Christ in humility, associating in love and brotherhood under the shadow of his divine protection. The Jews, being blind to this and holding to their bigoted imitations, were insolent and arrogant toward His Holiness and crucified him. Had they investigated the reality of Christ they would have beheld his beauty and truth.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this perhaps?


Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ. ... Most of the Jews had memorized the texts of the Old Testament and repeated them night and day, but inasmuch as they were ignorant of the meanings, they were deprived of the bounties of Christ.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-136.html.utf8?

pancreasman
11-18-2014, 05:54 PM
All these facts make my head hurt. Make it stop!

Adrift
11-18-2014, 05:54 PM
I do not believe it is. Charles Manson broke away and does his own thing. I may check this out a little more.

Charles Manson was a Bahai?

shunyadragon
11-18-2014, 08:13 PM
How about this, is it a valid Baha'i source?


"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Or this?


" ... What harm could come from a statement by the Jews that Jesus was also a Manifestation of the Word of God? Have the Christians suffered for their belief in Moses? Have they experienced any loss of religious enthusiasm or witnessed any defeat in their religious belief by declaring that Moses was a Prophet of God, that the Torah was a Book of God and that all the prophets of Israel were prophets of God? It is evident that no loss comes from this. And now it is time for the Jews to declare that Christ was the Word of God, and then this enmity between two great religions will pass away. For two thousand years this enmity and religious prejudice have continued. Blood has been shed, ordeals have been suffered. These few words will remedy the difficulty and unite two great religions. What harm could follow this: that just as the Christians glorify and praise the name of Moses, likewise the Jews should commemorate the name of Christ, declare Him to be the Word of God and consider Him as one of the chosen Messengers of God?"

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-120.html.utf8?

Or this?


Through failing to understand the meaning of the prophecies about the dominion of the Messiah, the Jews rejected Christ. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:—
The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent. When Jesus came they denounced and slew Him, saying: “This is not the One for Whom we wait. ..."

Thus the Jews thought and spoke, for they did not understand the Scriptures nor the glorious truths that were contained in them. The letter they knew by heart, but of the life-giving Spirit they understood not a word.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-170.html.utf8?

Or this?


The greatest cause of bereavement and disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation. It is due to this that wars and battles prevail; from this cause hatred and animosity arise continually among mankind. Through failure to investigate reality the Jews rejected His Holiness Jesus Christ. They were expecting his coming; by day and night they mourned and lamented, saying, “O God! hasten thou the day of the advent of Christ,” expressing most intense longing for the Messiah but when His Holiness Christ appeared they denied and rejected him, treated him with arrogant contempt, sentenced him to death and finally crucified him. Why did this happen? Because they were blindly following imitations, believing that which had descended to them as a heritage from their fathers and ancestors; tenaciously holding to it and refusing to investigate the reality of Christ. Therefore they were deprived of the bounties of His Holiness whereas if they had forsaken imitations and investigated the reality of the Messiah they would have surely been guided to believing in him.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this?


This was realized when peoples of all religions, nationalities and dispositions became united in their beliefs and followed Christ in humility, associating in love and brotherhood under the shadow of his divine protection. The Jews, being blind to this and holding to their bigoted imitations, were insolent and arrogant toward His Holiness and crucified him. Had they investigated the reality of Christ they would have beheld his beauty and truth.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this perhaps?


Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ. ... Most of the Jews had memorized the texts of the Old Testament and repeated them night and day, but inasmuch as they were ignorant of the meanings, they were deprived of the bounties of Christ.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-136.html.utf8?

These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection ot Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed.

Adrift
11-18-2014, 09:35 PM
These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection ot Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed.

Wow! That's a change in tone.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 01:55 AM
These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection ot Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed.Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

Sen McGlinn
11-19-2014, 08:10 AM
Shuny, is this an authentic Baha'i source?

http://bahai-library.com/brown_haifa_notes[/indent]

This is what is known by Bahais as a "pilgrims note", the equivalent of a hadith in Islam. It is somebody's recollections of what one of the central figures of the Bahai Faith said and did. Such recollections are not regarded as Bahai scripture and cannot be relied on to represent "the Bahai view" on anything. They do however have some value as historical sources, depending entirely on the reliability of the witness and how secure the chain of transmission is. Many are quite fantastical and in some cases they are interpolated or fictional. One can also compare the recollections of different people to the same event. Even if one is sure that Shoghi Effendi said X, however, it does not follow that X is Bahai teachings, for it misses the essential ingredient: when Shoghi Effendi said X, did he mean that as authentic Bahai teachings? If he did, he would write it, and the written version would be the authenticated one.

Sen McGlinn
11-19-2014, 08:12 AM
Shuny, you are thinking of Charles Mason Remey, who is a different person entirely, and in any case has nothing to do with Ramona Brown, the author of the account of her pilgrimmage that was cited above.

Adrift
11-19-2014, 08:25 AM
Hello Sen, welcome to Theologyweb. Hope you stick around. It'll be nice to get another Bahai's view on that particular faith, and how it interacts/intersects with other faith systems. Shunya tends to be extremely hostile towards other religious worldviews (especially Christianity) that he seems to consider outdated, impractical, and superstitious.

Sen McGlinn
11-19-2014, 08:31 AM
Only the first of your quotes is authentic Robrecht: the one from Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Sen McGlinn
11-19-2014, 08:34 AM
Hello Sen, welcome to Theologyweb.

Thank you; I am the same person as senmcglinn, whose registration seems to have been lost. I studied Christian theology and history, and then Islamic Studies, which gives me something of a binocular vision, and a chronic inability to give short answers to simple questions

Sen McGlinn
11-19-2014, 08:55 AM
The article doesn't deal well with 1 Thessalonians 14-15, particularly "They are displeasing to God and are opposed to all people…"

It's not a strong argument to say that "(a) the writers were themselves Jews,.."

But 1 Thessalonian 13-16 is generally regarded as an interpolation, on stylistic grounds and because Paul elsewhere attributes Jesus' execution to the "rulers of this age" [which could include the Sanhedrin, but does not exclude the Roman governor], and because it speaks of the persecution of Christians in Judea by Jews, which is hard to square with Pauline authorship, if he died in 67 AD.

All this from a shaky recollection of source criticism classes 30 years ago ... I will be happy to defer to anyone with a fresher and firmer grasp of the scholarship on that passage

robrecht
11-19-2014, 09:17 AM
Only the first of your quotes is authentic Robrecht: the one from Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
Do you mean only the first is regarded as sacred Baha'i scripture, but the others are still genuine quotes? Or that the latter quotes are inauthentic in some way? Or something else perhaps?

Welcome to TWeb. It's great to have a real expert in the Baha'i faith around here. I've come across your name several times while trying to research and better understand some things Shuny has said about the Baha'i faith/philosophy. Apparently it is rather controversial to consider oneself a Baha'i theologian. Echoing the Universal House of Justice, Shuny has said that you 'claim some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. A man after my own heart! Not that I claim such authority, nor do I suspect that you do either, but I do have some affection for heretics from all faiths.

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 09:29 AM
Do you mean only the first is regarded as sacred Baha'i scripture, but the others are still genuine quotes? Or that the latter quotes are inauthentic in some way? Or something else perhaps?

Welcome to TWeb. It's great to have a real expert in the Baha'i faith around here. I've come across your name several times while trying to research and better understand some things Shuny has said about the Baha'i faith/philosophy. Apparently it is rather controversial to consider oneself a Baha'i theologian. Echoing the Universal House of Justice, Shuny has said that you 'claim some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. A man after my own heart! Not that I claim such authority, nor do I suspect that you do either, but I do have some affection for heretics from all faiths.

I went back and read more and I will still have to do some reading to clarify some things. It depends here what Sen calls scripture. It is true when others individual believers such as what are called 'Pilgrim;s Notes.' They may be genuine, but they are definitely secondary sources of individual observations and not scripture even when they quote Abdul'baha.

Sen McGlinn is possibly more knowledgeable in some areas of Baha'i scholarship, but be careful about describing someone as 'expert.' It is nice to have him here to provide more insight into the Baha'i Faith.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 09:43 AM
He is correct, only first quote is Baha'i scripture, and the others are written by individual believers such as what are called 'Pilgrim;s Notes.' They may be genuine, but they are definitely secondary sources of individual observations and not scripture.

Sen McGlinn is definitely more knowledgeable in some areas of Baha'i scholarship, but be careful about describing someone as 'expert.' It is nice to have him here to provide more insight into the Baha'i Faith.
Individual believers such as Abdu’l-Bahá, also known as ‘Abbás Effendí, the eldest son of Bahá'u'lláh.

By the way, Shuny, you never bothered to document your claim that Sen 'claimed some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. Would you like to retract that perhaps?

Sorry if I offended anyone by referring to Sen as an expert!

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 11:47 AM
Individual believers such as Abdu’l-Bahá, also known as ‘Abbás Effendí, the eldest son of Bahá'u'lláh.

By the way, Shuny, you never bothered to document your claim that Sen 'claimed some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. Would you like to retract that perhaps?

Sorry if I offended anyone by referring to Sen as an expert!

I never made such a claim of Sen. Caution citations from 'Pilgrims Notes' and others quoting Abdul'baha indirectly may not be considered scripture. I will have to do some home work on these citations, before I totally agree with Sen.

You have a habit of viewing the Baha'i Faith in the same way YECers view science your always looking for rabbits in Pre-Cambrian rocks.

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 12:05 PM
Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

No Robrecht. To reject the Revelation of God and face the consequences of the conflicts and violence between and among religions is a consequence of this rejection. This is true for Christianity and Islam throughout history. When you reject the Guidance and Blessing of a Revelation and the grace, spiritual unity and harmony of which that Revelation offers. There is nothing in the Baha'i Revelation that advocates hatred, and intolerance of Jews, as in the NT, and nothing in the history of the Baha'i Faith that advocates any such violence against the followers of other religions.

It is being self accursed to reject the Revelation of God, and suffer the consequences.

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 12:15 PM
Individual believers such as Abdu’l-Bahá, also known as ‘Abbás Effendí, the eldest son of Bahá'u'lláh.



If Abdul'baha is quoted in something like 'Pilgrims Notes,' then it is not scripture nor authoritative. If it is from an authorized publication as a authored by Abdul'baha then I consider it authoritative.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 12:16 PM
No Robrecht. To reject the Revelation of God and face the consequences of the conflicts and violence between and among religions is a consequence of this rejection. This is true for Christianity and Islam throughout history. When you reject the Guidance and Blessing of a Revelation and the grace, spiritual unity and harmony of which that Revelation offers. There is nothing in the Baha'i Revelation that advocates hatred, and intolerance of Jews, as in the NT, and nothing in the history of the Baha'i Faith that advocates any such violence against the followers of other religions.
But you believe that the Jews were cursed, yes or no?

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 12:19 PM
But you believe that the Jews were cursed, yes or no?

My previous post was clear and specific. To reject the Revelation of God is to be self accursed of ones own free will.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 12:25 PM
My previous post was clear and specific. To reject the Revelation of God is to be self accursed of ones own free will.
I see you have added the 'self accursed' part to your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying. I do not think 'the Jews' would agree with your contention that they are self accursed.

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 12:48 PM
I see you have added the 'self accursed' part to your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying. I do not think 'the Jews' would agree with your contention that they are self accursed.

Actually no one would admit to this when they reject the Revelation of God. There is an important point here as to what anti-Jewish, anti-semitism, or specifically anti anything means in this context. It means to be aggressively hate, condemn, mock and literally attack which ever group you oppose. The problem with the NT is anti-Jewish, and not the broader vaguer anti-semitism.

Adrift
11-19-2014, 01:07 PM
By the way, Shuny, you never bothered to document your claim that Sen 'claimed some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. Would you like to retract that perhaps?


I never made such a claim of Sen.

A quick Google search shows that, actually, you did!

You can find it in a post you made back on 6/29 of this year here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=72713&viewfull=1#post72713

Referring to Sen, you wrote, "The above is an example of the problem of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture."

When pushed on this by robrecht, who asked you "Did he (Sen) really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?", you answered, "It is my understanding that he did."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=72766&viewfull=1#post72766

In the very next post you were asked if you had a reference to support your understanding, but you never replied.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 01:12 PM
I never made such a claim of Sen. Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=72615&viewfull=1#post72615), you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”


...The above is an example of the problem of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.

To become a Baha'i, is to embrace the core theistic belief of the Baha'i Faith and the authority of the scriptures and the Universal House of Justice. Personal opinions beyond this is wide open, and not an issue unless one claims an unwarranted claim of authority as an individual.

So I asked you: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice? It sounded more like he just claimed to be a Baha'i believer with some theological training and wrote a book for other Baha'i believers to read. Did he insist that his authority was such that his readers must agree with him in order to remain Baha'i in good standing? What exactly was his unwarranted claim to authority? Do you happen to know what was so destructive or dangerous about his views? Were his views as subversive of Baha'i faith as, for example, the dissenting or controversial theological views of St Thomas Aquinas, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, or Karl Rahner's in their Roman Catholic contexts, where all were allowed to remain not only Catholic but active priests in good standing?

You chose only to answer my first question: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?


It is my understanding that he did.

I asked if you had a reference to support this? And repeated the questions you had declined to answer. After six weeks, I asked again. After a few more days you said you needed to ‘check it more’. That was over 3 months ago so today, with the arrival of Sen in this thread, I thought it might be a good time to ask if you wanted to retract your earlier statement.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 01:15 PM
Actually no one would admit to this when they reject the Revelation of God. There is an important point here as to what anti-Jewish, anti-semitism, or specifically anti anything means in this context. It means to be aggressively hate, condemn, mock and literally attack which ever group you oppose. The problem with the NT is anti-Jewish, and not the broader vaguer anti-semitism.Well, since you admit they would not admit to being self accursed, perhaps you should not use the modifier 'self'; perhaps you should just stick to the words of Baha'i sacred scripture and just say "accursed".

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 03:09 PM
Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=72615&viewfull=1#post72615), you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”



So I asked you: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice? It sounded more like he just claimed to be a Baha'i believer with some theological training and wrote a book for other Baha'i believers to read. Did he insist that his authority was such that his readers must agree with him in order to remain Baha'i in good standing? What exactly was his unwarranted claim to authority? Do you happen to know what was so destructive or dangerous about his views? Were his views as subversive of Baha'i faith as, for example, the dissenting or controversial theological views of St Thomas Aquinas, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, or Karl Rahner's in their Roman Catholic contexts, where all were allowed to remain not only Catholic but active priests in good standing?

You chose only to answer my first question: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?



I asked if you had a reference to support this? And repeated the questions you had declined to answer. After six weeks, I asked again. After a few more days you said you needed to ‘check it more’. That was over 3 months ago so today, with the arrival of Sen in this thread, I thought it might be a good time to ask if you wanted to retract your earlier statement.

I was unable to find a reference that provided sufficient clarification of the case. The best I could do was state it was my 'understanding,' and I still have not been able to find a source with a specific clarification. As with all dialogues I am perfectly willing to be corrected based on reliable sources, and continue the dialogue.

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 03:14 PM
Well, since you admit they would not admit to being self accursed, perhaps you should not use the modifier 'self'; perhaps you should just stick to the words of Baha'i sacred scripture and just say "accursed".

Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.

robrecht
11-19-2014, 03:25 PM
Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.
Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 03:31 PM
How about this, is it a valid Baha'i source?


"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Or this?


" ... What harm could come from a statement by the Jews that Jesus was also a Manifestation of the Word of God? Have the Christians suffered for their belief in Moses? Have they experienced any loss of religious enthusiasm or witnessed any defeat in their religious belief by declaring that Moses was a Prophet of God, that the Torah was a Book of God and that all the prophets of Israel were prophets of God? It is evident that no loss comes from this. And now it is time for the Jews to declare that Christ was the Word of God, and then this enmity between two great religions will pass away. For two thousand years this enmity and religious prejudice have continued. Blood has been shed, ordeals have been suffered. These few words will remedy the difficulty and unite two great religions. What harm could follow this: that just as the Christians glorify and praise the name of Moses, likewise the Jews should commemorate the name of Christ, declare Him to be the Word of God and consider Him as one of the chosen Messengers of God?"

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-120.html.utf8?

Or this?


Through failing to understand the meaning of the prophecies about the dominion of the Messiah, the Jews rejected Christ. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:—
The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent. When Jesus came they denounced and slew Him, saying: “This is not the One for Whom we wait. ..."

Thus the Jews thought and spoke, for they did not understand the Scriptures nor the glorious truths that were contained in them. The letter they knew by heart, but of the life-giving Spirit they understood not a word.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-170.html.utf8?

Or this?


The greatest cause of bereavement and disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation. It is due to this that wars and battles prevail; from this cause hatred and animosity arise continually among mankind. Through failure to investigate reality the Jews rejected His Holiness Jesus Christ. They were expecting his coming; by day and night they mourned and lamented, saying, “O God! hasten thou the day of the advent of Christ,” expressing most intense longing for the Messiah but when His Holiness Christ appeared they denied and rejected him, treated him with arrogant contempt, sentenced him to death and finally crucified him. Why did this happen? Because they were blindly following imitations, believing that which had descended to them as a heritage from their fathers and ancestors; tenaciously holding to it and refusing to investigate the reality of Christ. Therefore they were deprived of the bounties of His Holiness whereas if they had forsaken imitations and investigated the reality of the Messiah they would have surely been guided to believing in him.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this?


This was realized when peoples of all religions, nationalities and dispositions became united in their beliefs and followed Christ in humility, associating in love and brotherhood under the shadow of his divine protection. The Jews, being blind to this and holding to their bigoted imitations, were insolent and arrogant toward His Holiness and crucified him. Had they investigated the reality of Christ they would have beheld his beauty and truth.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this perhaps?


Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ. ... Most of the Jews had memorized the texts of the Old Testament and repeated them night and day, but inasmuch as they were ignorant of the meanings, they were deprived of the bounties of Christ.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-136.html.utf8?

One clarification concerning these sources. The first one by Baha'u'llah is Revelation. The third one citation from the book by J E Esslemont is from a book he wrote and he acurately cites Abdul'baha. Is is considered a good accurate reference . The other references are accurately recorded talks by Abdul'baha from books published by the Baha'i Faith and I consider authoritative. As I said before they are good references

shunyadragon
11-19-2014, 03:33 PM
Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

I do not know the languages, but I will assume the translation is accurate. Do you understand Arabic or Farsi sufficient to understand the translation?

paramount
11-19-2014, 08:29 PM
Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.
You would be amazed at the amount of negative language from Baha'u'llah in Baha'i writings. There are instances where he calls those who deny him and his enemies pigs, dogs, and donkeys amongst a range of other titles.

paramount
11-19-2014, 08:39 PM
This is what is known by Bahais as a "pilgrims note", the equivalent of a hadith in Islam. It is somebody's recollections of what one of the central figures of the Bahai Faith said and did. Such recollections are not regarded as Bahai scripture and cannot be relied on to represent "the Bahai view" on anything. They do however have some value as historical sources, depending entirely on the reliability of the witness and how secure the chain of transmission is. Many are quite fantastical and in some cases they are interpolated or fictional. One can also compare the recollections of different people to the same event. Even if one is sure that Shoghi Effendi said X, however, it does not follow that X is Bahai teachings, for it misses the essential ingredient: when Shoghi Effendi said X, did he mean that as authentic Bahai teachings? If he did, he would write it, and the written version would be the authenticated one.

Personal experience tells me that the "pilgrims note" issue is just a lame excuse to hide the true face of Baha'i figures. Poke around in Baha'i websites and you will find hundreds of quotes and stories from so called "pilgrims notes" that Baha'is use in their proselytizing sessions. But the moment you find something insane in these "pilgrims notes" that are credible eyewitness accounts of what Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha did, Baha'is will tell you these accounts are not scripture and have no significance for Baha'is. And by the way, most Baha'i scripture is locked up in the Baha'i archives in Israel where no one has access to. What we have access to from Baha'i scripture are mostly cherry picked quotes translated to English with most of the problematic stuff left out.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 05:45 AM
I was unable to find a reference that provided sufficient clarification of the case. The best I could do was state it was my 'understanding,' and I still have not been able to find a source with a specific clarification. As with all dialogues I am perfectly willing to be corrected based on reliable sources, and continue the dialogue.
Well, this is much better than your previous attempt at flat-out denial. I am glad I was able to refresh your memory. Maybe if Sen sticks around he will be able to clarify for you (and all of us) at least his side of the story. I wonder if you will be able to accept his side of the story rather than that of the Universal House of Justice. As I recall, they did not name Sen by name, 'though everyone seemed to know they were speaking of him, so perhaps you will use this as an 'out'.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 05:59 AM
I do not know the languages, but I will assume the translation is accurate. Do you understand Arabic or Farsi sufficient to understand the translation?I recognize a lot of Arabic words because of the cognate Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. For example, the Baha'i words for 'sacred scripture' (Kitáb-i-Aqdas) are the same as in Hebrew and Aramaic: כתבי הקדש, from the roots כתב, ktv, to write, and קדש, qdsh, holy.

There are forms of the verb that can possibly be reflexive (to curse onself), but the English translation suggests a simple passive, which is to be cursed by another, sometimes understood as a theological passive, ie, cursed by God.

ac·curs·ed
əˈkərst,əˈkərsid

adjective


literary
under a curse.
"the Angel of Death walks this accursed house"
synonyms: cursed, damned, doomed, condemned, ill-fated, ill-omened, jinxed


"he and his line are accursed"
antonyms: blessed


informal dated
used to express strong dislike of or anger toward someone or something.
"those accursed books!"
synonyms: hateful, detestable, loathsome, foul, abominable, damnable,


odious, obnoxious, despicable, horrible, horrid, ghastly, awful, dreadful, terrible
antonyms: pleasant


Origin, Middle English: past participle of obsolete accurse, from a- (expressing intensity) + curse.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2SFXN_enUS508US519&num=30&site=&source=hp&q=accursed+definition&oq=accursed+definition&gs_l=hp.3..35i39j0i22i30l4.2701.7331.0.7573.22.21. 1.0.0.0.184.1928.17j4.21.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..1.21 .1832.0.6FbMc0z-kIA

Darth Executor
11-20-2014, 10:13 AM
Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

:lol: This is some mighty fine trolling son. I approve.

Sen McGlinn
11-20-2014, 12:37 PM
Do you mean only the first is regarded as sacred Baha'i scripture, but the others are still genuine quotes? Or that the latter quotes are inauthentic in some way? Or something else perhaps?


There are "rules of evidence" that define what Bahai scripture is (canon), and there are text-critical questions about the transmission of all texts, and translation issues. As for the canon, the Bahai Writings are defined as the written works of Baha'u'llah (and in a somewhat different sense, those of the Bab), and of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi for which an authenticated original is available, plus, those texts that originate orally, but where Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha have checked and approved the notes. Shoghi Effendi could have certified the reports made of conversations with him, but he consistently refused to do so.

These canonical works are not all of equal rank: the words of Baha'u'llah are the creative word, while Abdu'l-Baha's expositions (which can be very free in bring in biblical or quranic or scientific material), are an authoritative guide to the meaning of the creative word, as Abdu'l-Baha himself embodies that meaning. He is "the Exemplar." Shoghi Effendi is the authorised interpreter in a narrower, textual sense.

I will pass over text criticism, except to note that for anyone studying NT source criticism and early church, a study of the early Bahai community could be very illuminating. You can see how texts are transmitted and corrupted, and restored or discarded, how the ethos of the networks that transmit a text influence the way it is read, and so forth.

Then there are translations; naturally they vary in quality, and individual translators have their foibles. And then the editors of entire texts, and of compilations. Some editors corrupt a text, adding their own ideas into it. Most compilation editors and secondary editors are not aware of the authenticity issues and therefore mix, or quote, authentic and inauthentic texts.

As I recall, your sources were The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, and Foundations of World Unity. The first of these is an edited and corrupted version of what Bahai call "pilgrims' notes." Abdu'l-Baha spoke in Persian or Arabic, an interpreter gave an English or French interpretation, people made notes in longhand or shorthand, the notes were worked up into running text, and published in journals such as Star of the West, or circulated in typescript. Then an editor, in this case Howard McNutt, collected the various reports and worked them up again, raising the literary level and inserting his own ideas, which are sometimes directly opposed to those of Abdu'l-Baha.

Much the same applies to two other volumes of talks of Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London and Paris Talks.

However, when Abdu'l-Baha spoke in Persian, notes were often taken in Persian, which he checked and corrected before allowing them to be released. These are therefore canonical. They were published in Bahai Journals, and have been collected in a 3-volume set known as Khatabaat, or Khetabaat (talks) of Abdu'l-Baha. The first volume of the set bears Abdu'l-Baha's imprimatur. I have begun to translate these in a blog, Abdu'l-Baha Speaks
https://abdulbahatalks.wordpress.com/
These translations are my first try, which others will correct, so eventually we will have authentic English versions of many of the talks that are reported in these three English volumes, and some that have not previously been known in European languages.

Baha'u'llah and the New Era was written by Esslemont, who discussed its first chapters with Abdu'l-Baha. He used and cited a mixture of authentic canon and pilgrims' notes, and in one case mistook a newspaper editor's words for those of Abdu'l-Baha. But his book became a basic "primer" and has been translated into many languages, so subsequent editors and publication committees have done their best to improve on it. However their own knowledge was not always adequate, and a text prepared by a committee or a sequence of editors easily becomes incoherent. Esslemont knew his audience, whereas the current edition seems to be written for nobody in particular.

Foundations of World Unity is a compilation, which mixes authentic and inauthentic originals and later, corrupted, versions. Because there is nothing there that is not available elsewhere, there is no reason to use it at all.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 12:56 PM
Thank you, Sen. I have book marked your translation blog as a source I will check in the future.

JohnnyP
11-20-2014, 12:59 PM
This all fine and nice, but it does not reflect the reality of the historical use of the NT in Christianity, particularly in Europe.

It is not only Hitler and Martin Luther, but the whole history of Christianity since Constantine. I acknowledge that many are interpreting the NT differently in recent history. but your neglecting the facts that it a long term endemic problem in Christianity based on NT citations, and in places remains a problem today.

Your references refer outside the basic issue, which is anti-Jewish slaughter, ethnic cleansing, persecution and prejudice in Christian history against specifically Jews in Christian history. The question is not whether your opinion as to whether it was justified or not. It is a fact of history that this view dominated European Christian history up until the mid twentieth century. The wide spread 'Passion plays' in Europe is a good witness to the problem, and is still a problem and issue in some paces like in Eastern Europe.

Again and again we are not talking about the broader problem of antisemitism. The issue is anti-Judaism. The fact is the Christians did use the references in the NT to justify anti-Jewish, slaughter, ethnic cleansing and persecution for 2,000 years. Facts are facts, your opinion as to whether the NT is to blame or not does not change history.

Yes slavery is another unfortunate issue, but at present the OT is not an issue in my argument,

Yeah, justification of slavery

I acknowledge history, but facts remain that Gentiles have had a problem with Judaism since Jews existed, they've been killing each other for several thousands of years. Abraham fighting Kedorlaomer, Pharaoh fighting Jews, Jews fighting Canaanites, Babylonians fighting Jews, Jews and Sassanids fighting Christians, the Church fighting Jews, Jews fighting Palestinians...

So yeah I do think it's mostly irrelevant that Gentiles cherrypicked negative bits of the NT and ignored what it did say about loving enemies, being harmless, not hating Jews even if they are enemies of the Gospel.

Without Christianity there's plenty out there to twist into something bad against Jews. Constantine's continued paganism, Hindu Aryanism. From the looks of recent posts, even Baha'i ideas that Jews brought curses on themselves.

Jews and Gentiles have always fought and probably will until the end, they don't need an NT or anything special to do it, that's the fact you aren't acknowledging.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 01:07 PM
I acknowledge history, but facts remain that Gentiles have had a problem with Judaism since Jews existed, they've been killing each other for several thousands of years. Abraham fighting Kedorlaomer, Pharaoh fighting Jews, Jews fighting Canaanites, Babylonians fighting Jews, Jews and Sassanids fighting Christians, the Church fighting Jews, Jews fighting Palestinians...

So yeah I do think it's mostly irrelevant that Gentiles cherrypicked negative bits of the NT and ignored what it did say about loving enemies, being harmless, not hating Jews even if they are enemies of the Gospel.

Without Christianity there's plenty out there to twist into something bad against Jews. Constantine's continued paganism, Hindu Aryanism. From the looks of recent posts, even Baha'i ideas that Jews brought curses on themselves.

Jews and Gentiles have always fought and probably will until the end, they don't need an NT or anything special to do it, that's the fact you aren't acknowledging.
There was anti-Judaism in the ancient world prior to the Advent (!) of Christianity, but, as a general rule, the Jews/Judeans were as often than not regarded positively. There are some oft-quoted negative characterizations of the Jews in surviving ancient literature, but these should be counterbalanced by the numerous positive characterizations.

Sen McGlinn
11-20-2014, 01:13 PM
Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

It is Arabic, a quote from the Quran, 5:64. The verb is L ` N, the pronunciation here is lu`enuu. They are accursed is a good translation. The referent is "the Jews" but in context it is those Jews who say "the Hand of God is chained up." This phrase had the same meaning as "the Gate of Revelation is closed" , which one finds in some Islamic theology texts. No doubt I should know the Christian equivalent too, but I haven't had my first coffee. In all these cases, the religious community protects its canon, and protects itself from schism, by saying there can be no further scriptures. Bahai does the same: "Bahai scripture" is a completed book, although not all its texts have been discovered. No new Bahai scripture can be written. This is understandable and necessary, but then this elides into a belief that God has stopped revealing himself, or his Will. That is blasphemous, it is an "accursed" assertion about God. The Creator God is the God of the new; who speaks in new tongues, and is known by new names.

Sen McGlinn
11-20-2014, 02:00 PM
Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=72615&viewfull=1#post72615), you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”


There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 02:18 PM
There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.
I suspected as much. By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

Sen McGlinn
11-20-2014, 06:56 PM
By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

Yes, absolutely. To quote one of their statements:


In the Bahá'í Faith there are two authoritative centers appointed to which the believers must turn, for in reality the Interpreter of the Word is an extension of that center which is the Word itself. The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means. Thus one center is the Book with its Interpreter, and the other is the Universal House of Justice guided by God to decide on whatever is not explicitly revealed in the Book.
(7 December 1969, published in "Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1968-1973", pp. 42-43)


But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees.

shunyadragon
11-20-2014, 07:45 PM
You would be amazed at the amount of negative language from Baha'u'llah in Baha'i writings. There are instances where he calls those who deny him and his enemies pigs, dogs, and donkeys amongst a range of other titles.

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 08:04 PM
Yes, absolutely. Then I don't see a problem. Of course that won't get you on the subway, but take it for what it's worth. Seems to me they should re-enroll you as fast as they can so as not to lose any more credibility.


To quote one of their statements: I'm going to have to read this again later as its going over my head right now.


But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees. I haven't read the original 'article' yet (I may get to it when I can), but I whole-heartedly agree with you. Properly understood, the New Testament, at least the more important parts of it, are very pro-Semitic/Jewish. Of course, 'properly understood' is easier said than done. The elements that are oftentimes exaggerated as anti-semitic or anti-Jewish are indeed polemical, but they were sometimes written from the perspective of those who were not in power and who were getting the shorter end of the stick at the time or in their recent past. 1 Thessalonians 2, which I consider to be probably authentic, as also do more and more NT exegetes recently, is more anti-authoritarian, anti-Judean, than anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, which is how it has been more frequently read throughout history. The Pharisees, as near as we can tell, were a very diverse group over time and had divided themselves into opposing camps before the time of Jesus so they were themselves rather unfair to each other, I suspect. I think Jesus himself got caught in the middle of a firestorm, somewhat of his own making, and which he probably enjoyed to some extent, but by the time that the New Testament was being written, there were few Pharisees around who still looked favorably on Jesus' controversial teaching, although Luke seems to be aware of some. For the most part, the New Testament is evidence of the previously Jewish culture of early Christians emerging into a new culture which was content to leave the Pharisees' disputes behind. The sad thing is, that by recovering as much as we can of the Pharisee culture, we can gain many insights into the context and depth of Jesus' teachings which most Christians will never realize.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 08:10 PM
Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.You seemed to read the whole citation as referring to the opposition between Judaism and Christianity when in actuality it seems to be more a matter of the opposition between Judaism and Islam. It is funny to hear you complaining of the negativity of trashing others. Trashing the religions of others does not really witness to the superiority of the Baha'i way, which I believe should encourage what is good in the views of others.

shunyadragon
11-20-2014, 08:42 PM
You seemed to read the whole citation as referring to the opposition between Judaism and Christianity when in actuality it seems to be more a matter of the opposition between Judaism and Islam. It is funny to hear you complaining of the negativity of trashing others. Trashing the religions of others does not really witness to the superiority of the Baha'i way, which I believe should encourage what is good in the views of others.

That is not what I said, please do not misquote me. I have not trashed other religions. The fact that Christianity is highly anti-Jewish from Constantine to near the present and still a problem today is a fact of history since Constantine. The reasons and why they referred to scripture the way they did is another question. I explained to JohnnyP before that the NT is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the citations noted against Jews have nonetheless lead to a violent anti-Jewish history.

Your reference to the Baha'i writings as anti-Jewish were flawed and explained. There is nothing in the Baha'i writings that advocates an anti-Jewish negative view toward Jews from the Baha'i perspective Your efforts to split frog hairs over the translation are meaningless, since the whole reference is understood as I explained. The intent was the consequences of rejecting the Revelation of God is violence and conflict. This is very much the witness in history and even today.

I will leave the splitting frog hairs of academic translation to Sen and you.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 08:52 PM
That is not what I said, please do not misquote me. I did not quote you at all! But if you like, I can quote you.


I have not trashed other religions. I will agree to disagree on that, but if you are interested in the opinions of others on this point, go ahead and ask others if they feel if you have been fair to their religious beliefs. My impression is that you constantly ridicule the religious beliefs of others and try to show how your own religious beliefs or philosophy are superior. My impression could be wrong, of course, so please go ahead and ask others.


The fact that Christianity is highly anti-Jewish from Constantine to near the present and still a problem today is a fact of history since Constantine. The reasons and why they referred to scripture the way they did is another question. I explained to JohnnyP before that the NT is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the citations noted against Jews have nonetheless lead to a violent anti-Jewish history. You will get no argument from me about the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history.

shunyadragon
11-20-2014, 08:59 PM
I did not quote you at all! But if you like, I can quote you.

I will agree to disagree on that, but if you are interested in the opinions of others on this point, go ahead and ask others if they feel if you have been fair to their religious beliefs. My impression is that you constantly ridicule the religious beliefs of others and try to show how your own religious beliefs or philosophy are superior. My impression could be wrong, of course, so please go ahead and ask others.

Nonetheless you described my views 'as it seems or my impression mode' without citing me specifically, which is hardly ethical. I consider my mode to debate hard, and yes I do not mix words and come down hard on Fundamentalist YEC/OEC Christians, and will continue to do so. I do cite sources and support my views, and I do at times when it is appropriate acknowledge my errors, and adjust my views based on sources.

Vague references to the views of 'unnamed others' is an unfortunate fallacy.

robrecht
11-20-2014, 09:50 PM
Nonetheless you described my views 'as it seems or my impression mode' without citing me specifically, which is hardly ethical. There is certainly nothing unethical about sharing with you my honest impression of your views.

But, as I mentioned, if you would like quotations, I can provide them for you, it hardly seems necessary, they are right here in the preceding couple of pages in this very thread, but if you wish. I provided a quotation of and link to Baha'i scripture, among other nonscriptural quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and asked you about their legitimacy and especially about your understanding of why the Jews were accursed according to Baha'i scripture:


"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:


These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection ot Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed.

I think you were probably responding more to my quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and not necessarily to the quote from Bahá'u'lláh, which seems to be more about the opposition between Judaism and Islam, while the quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá pertained more directly to the opposition between Judaims and Chistianity.


Vague references to the views of 'unnamed others' is an unfortunate fallacy.No fallacy at all. I merely invited you to ask others what they thought since I may indeed be mistaken in my impressions.

Getting back to the quote from your holy scriptures, perhaps you could provide the reference to where the Jews say 'the hand of God is chained up.’ Sen referred to the Koran, but I'm wondering about the original Jewish source of this supposed quote or sentiment.

paramount
11-21-2014, 12:41 AM
Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

See here: Baha’i Belief and Courtesy: Baha’u’llah Refers to Those that Deny Him as Pigs, Donkeys, and Dogs
(http://www.avazedohol.com/eng/index.php/articles?id=86)

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 06:31 AM
There is certainly nothing unethical about sharing with you my honest impression of your views.

But, as I mentioned, if you would like quotations, I can provide them for you, it hardly seems necessary, they are right here in the preceding couple of pages in this very thread, but if you wish. I provided a quotation of and link to Baha'i scripture, among other nonscriptural quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and asked you about their legitimacy and especially about your understanding of why the Jews were accursed according to Baha'i scripture:


"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

This is in line with my statements the being accursed is being self-accursed by their denial of the Revelation form God.

Again your reference to the Baha'i writing as anti-Jewish and advocating violence against Jews is not based on sound Baha'i scripture.

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:




I think you were probably responding more to my quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and not necessarily to the quote from Bahá'u'lláh, which seems to be more about the opposition between Judaism and Islam, while the quotations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá pertained more directly to the opposition between Judaims and Chistianity.

I believe this is Sen's response, not mine


No fallacy at all. I merely invited you to ask others what they thought since I may indeed be mistaken in my impressions.

It still remains third party anonymous accusations, which represent a fallacy and unethical. I have the respect of long term members of Tweb like Glen Morton and Tassman and others, even though we disagree strongly on some issues. It is true that the gang of four accused me of being an atheist, or a strong agnostic and not a theist, and even took it to the board and failed. If I did not challenge beliefs and piss a few off I would consider my presence on Tweb a failure.


Getting back to the quote from your holy scriptures, perhaps you could provide the reference to where the Jews say 'the hand of God is chained up.’ Sen referred to the Koran, but I'm wondering about the original Jewish source of this supposed quote or sentiment.

From the Baha'i perspective the Quran is as legitimate source as the Tanakh.

robrecht
11-21-2014, 06:39 AM
Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.
... I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.Let's look at an earlier paragraph in the section I cited. As I say, I do see the sense in which the Bahá’u’lláh is noting the responsibility of the nonbelievers, and thus it is not merely a case of God or someone else willy nilly cursing the Jews for no reason, but the blame heaped upon the Jews here is a little shocking, don't you think? And note also that he certainly does also speak of God's role in punishing them:


And when the days of Moses were ended, and the light of Jesus, shining forth from the Day Spring of the Spirit, encompassed the world, all the people of Israel arose in protest against Him. They clamored that He Whose advent the Bible had foretold must needs promulgate and fulfil the laws of Moses, whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine Messiah, had annulled the laws of divorce and of the sabbath day—the most weighty of all the laws of Moses. Moreover, what of the signs of the Manifestation yet to come? These people of Israel are even unto the present day still expecting that Manifestation which the Bible hath foretold! How many Manifestations of Holiness, how many Revealers of the light everlasting, have appeared since the time of Moses, and yet Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus and of beholding the Face of God.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

robrecht
11-21-2014, 06:45 AM
This is in line with my statements the being accursed is being self-accursed by their denial of the Revelation form God.

Again your reference to the Baha'i writing as anti-Jewish and advocating violence against Jews is not based on sound Baha'i scripture. I never said the Baha'i scriptures advocated violence against Jews.


I believe this is Sen's response, not mine You believe what is Sen's response and not yours?


It still remains third party anonymous accusations, which represent a fallacy and unethical. Untrue. I stand behind my own impressions as I myself have stated them and I invited you to check with others for their impressions as I may be mistaken. That is merely an invitation, not a third party accusation.


From the Baha'i perspective the Quran is as legitimate source as the Tanakh. So it appears you do not have a Jewish source for this quotation attributed to the Jews.

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 10:11 AM
I never said the Baha'i scriptures advocated violence against Jews.

[quote] You believe what is Sen's response and not yours?


Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:

Ok I misread the post. This what I said and I have no problem with it in context:

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:
"These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection of Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed."

By ~800 AD the Jews either left or were cleansed from Christianity except for a few isolated communities in the Middle East.


Untrue. I stand behind my own impressions as I myself have stated them and I invited you to check with others for their impressions as I may be mistaken. That is merely an invitation, not a third party accusation.

It is most definitely unnamed third party accusation!!!!!!! Take responsibility for your own accusations and do not duff them off on unnamed third parties. Who am I going to ask? Sparko, seer, Jorge? Third party accusations are your responsibility not mine. I gave two that are reliable long term members of Tweb, Glen Morton now a sometime poster, and Tassman. When express such vague third party meaningless references, it is up to you to back them up.


So it appears you do not have a Jewish source for this quotation attributed to the Jews.

The source was given by Sen. Attributing things in the Tanakh to Jews is problematic, because much of the Tanakh is not written by the Jews it was edited from older sources.

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 10:18 AM
Let's look at an earlier paragraph in the section I cited. As I say, I do see the sense in which the Bahá’u’lláh is noting the responsibility of the nonbelievers, and thus it is not merely a case of God or someone else willy nilly cursing the Jews for no reason, but the blame heaped upon the Jews here is a little shocking, don't you think? And note also that he certainly does also speak of God's role in punishing them:


And when the days of Moses were ended, and the light of Jesus, shining forth from the Day Spring of the Spirit, encompassed the world, all the people of Israel arose in protest against Him. They clamored that He Whose advent the Bible had foretold must needs promulgate and fulfil the laws of Moses, whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine Messiah, had annulled the laws of divorce and of the sabbath day—the most weighty of all the laws of Moses. Moreover, what of the signs of the Manifestation yet to come? These people of Israel are even unto the present day still expecting that Manifestation which the Bible hath foretold! How many Manifestations of Holiness, how many Revealers of the light everlasting, have appeared since the time of Moses, and yet Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus and of beholding the Face of God.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

No problem, you are invoking hyperbole to justify your biased view. It is mild compared to what God commanded to do against the Canaanites, Jews and others in the Tanakh. The bottom line is that the reference refers to self-accursed, and makes no reference to Baha'is making any anti-Jewish statements nor actions against the Jews.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 10:47 AM
That is not what I said, please do not misquote me. I have not trashed other religions. The fact that Christianity is highly anti-Jewish from Constantine to near the present and still a problem today is a fact of history since Constantine. The reasons and why they referred to scripture the way they did is another question. I explained to JohnnyP before that the NT is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the citations noted against Jews have nonetheless lead to a violent anti-Jewish history.

...The intent was the consequences of rejecting the Revelation of God is violence and conflict.

We all agree Roman Christianity and its offspring "used" Christian ideas, which as robrecht just did and I have pointed out weren't against all Jews -- since the NT was obviously written by Jews, as are condemning statements in the OT about harlotry and such -- but against Jews strayed from our particular notions of godliness.

As I've said elsewhere, Gentile entities like Babylon and Rome were certainly used by God to punish Jews: according to Jewish sages, for idolatry and baseless hatred of one another, respectively.

So from an eschatological perspective, Rome had already started being used as an instrument for God's wrath when it destroyed the Second Temple. Things went especially sour for Jews after the Bar-Kokhba revolt. In the meantime, Christianity grew rapidly among Gentiles despite heavy persecution by Rome. Constantine no doubt felt that if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Roman Christianity/Catholicism is essentially the same old state paganism adapted to Christian ideas and politicized accordingly. Not really a correct form of NT Christianity, apologies to my Catholic friends.

The main point here is, Rome was already in line to punish Jews no matter what, Christianity or not. It doesn't make an apologist's job particularly easy that Christianity became the face of Rome, but prophetically, Rome became the iron rod used to let unrighteous Jews know who was boss. Same as Babylon was, even though Babylon and Rome were by no means innocent themselves.

One could even suppose that if Jews didn't want a Messiah in Jesus to protect them, they'd get one who would punish them, but they'd get one whether they liked it or not.

So to say that the NT itself led to persecution of Jews misses this whole point that God allowed it for His own reasons. Which you even agree was a similar intent of those Baha'i teachings discussing satanic fancies of Jews and such, to drive home that point.

robrecht
11-21-2014, 11:28 AM
Ok I misread the post. This what I said and I have no problem with it in context:

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:
"These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection of Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed."

By ~800 AD the Jews either left or were cleansed from Christianity except for a few isolated communities in the Middle East.

It is most definitely unnamed third party accusation!!!!!!! Take responsibility for your own accusations and do not duff them off on unnamed third parties. Who am I going to ask? Sparko, seer, Jorge? Third party accusations are your responsibility not mine. I gave two that are reliable long term members of Tweb, Glen Morton now a sometime poster, and Tassman. When express such vague third party meaningless references, it is up to you to back them up. Ask whomever you like. I have taken full responsibility, several times now, for my own expression of my own impression. An invitation for you to ask others their impressions, because my own may be mistaken, is in no way an anonymous third party accusation. It is merely an invitation for you to ask anyone whom you choose because my own impression may be mistaken.


The source was given by Sen. Attributing things in the Tanakh to Jews is problematic, because much of the Tanakh is not written by the Jews it was edited from older sources. I suspect it is even worse when you use the Qur'an as a source for quoting the opinion of 'the Jews' so I asked if you had a Jewsih source, any Jewish source of your pleasing.

robrecht
11-21-2014, 11:30 AM
No problem, you are invoking hyperbole to justify your biased view. It is mild compared to what God commanded to do against the Canaanites, Jews and others in the Tanakh. The bottom line is that the reference refers to self-accursed, and makes no reference to Baha'is making any anti-Jewish statements nor actions against the Jews.I'm curious. What in my remarks do you see as hyperbolic?

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 11:38 AM
Shuny's hostility to religion is infamous enough that many of us pretty much just assume he's some sort of atheist.

paramount
11-21-2014, 01:26 PM
Shuny's hostility to religion is infamous enough that many of us pretty much just assume he's some sort of atheist.

Forget about Shuny, you should see what Baha'u'llah says about those who deny Baha'ism or those who have enmity towards him:



"Whoever denies this Apparent Exalted Luminous Grace (meaning Baha’ism), it is worthy that he asks his state from his mother and he will soon be returned to the bottom of hell." (Abdul-Hamid Ishraq Khavari, Ma’idiy-i asimani, vol. 4, p. 355)



"Whoever has the enmity of this servant (meaning Baha’u’llah) in his heart, certainly Satan has entered his mother’s bed." (Abdul-Hamid Ishraq Khavari, Ganj-i shaygan, p. 79)

'Asking your state from your mother' is an idiom in Persian that means 'you are a bastard'. 'Satan entering your mother's bed' sort of conveys the same meaning.

None of the two aforementioned quotes have been translated into English by the Baha'i administration but images of both original quotes in Arabic can be found on the official Baha'i library on these pages in case you want to double check them:
http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/b/MAS4/mas4-355.html#pg355
http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/o/GS/gs-79.html#pg79

Some more nasty stuff can be found here:
Oneness of humanity in baha'i (http://www.avazedohol.com/eng/index.php/let-us-read-and-ponder?layout=edit&id=15)

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 04:01 PM
I'm curious. What in my remarks do you see as hyperbolic?

Your reference to the Baha'i writings being anti-Jewish

robrecht
11-21-2014, 05:46 PM
Your reference to the Baha'i writings being anti-JewishNo, I would not say that. I have only read an extremely small amount of the Baha'i sacred scriptures and would therefore never characterize them globally like that. I did ask you your opinion about this one section I quoted and you declined to give a clear answer. Yes, saying that the Jews are accursed, that particular statement does sound anti-Jewish to me, it sounds like very strong negative language. Do you really imagine it is a positive or neutral thing to say that the Jewish people are accursed?

I asked you about this in Post #50, but you would only say (#61) that these are the consequences of people rejecting the Revelation of God, rejecting the Guidance and Blessing of a Revelation and the grace, spiritual unity and harmony of which that Revelation offers. Not a very direct response in my opinion, but do you think even this is a positive thing to say about the Jews and others? Do you think it is a neutral thing to say about others? Eventually, you would add that all of this is being self-accursed, 'though you admitted that the Jews would certainly not agree with this characterization of them cursing themselves. Even this, 'though, do you think it is a positive or neutral thing to say about the Jews, namely that they are self-accursed?

Because you appealed to the larger context, I quoted an earlier paragraph in which which the the Jews are spoken of as 'wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, still expecting the idol of their own handiwork. Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire.'

Do you think it is a positive or neutral thing to say that the Jews are wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings? To claim that they are looking forward to is idolatry? To say that God laid hold of them for their sins, that he extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire--does that sound like a positive or neutral thing to say about the Jews? Really? Be honest.

If I am using hyperbolic language here, it is only because I am directly quoting the negative language of this text to you in an attempt to get you to speak plainly and honestly about it. This text certainly does not seem positive or neutral about the Jews.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 06:18 PM
Your reference to the Baha'i writings being anti-Jewish

This section places blame on Jewish people for centuries of hatred and violence because they won't accept Jesus and Mohammed:

Could it be said that the acceptance of Moses by the Christians and Muḥammadans has been harmful and detrimental to those people? On the contrary, it has been beneficial to them, proving that they have been fair-minded and just. What harm could result to the Jewish people then if they in return should accept His Holiness Christ and acknowledge the validity of the prophethood of His Holiness Muḥammad? By this acceptance and praiseworthy attitude the enmity and hatred which have afflicted mankind so many centuries would be dispelled, fanaticism and bloodshed pass away and the world be blessed by unity and agreement. -Source (http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-17.html.utf8?query=jewish&action=highlight#gr18)

robrecht
11-22-2014, 06:17 AM
By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?


Yes, absolutely. To quote one of their statements:


In the Bahá'í Faith there are two authoritative centers appointed to which the believers must turn, for in reality the Interpreter of the Word is an extension of that center which is the Word itself. The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means. Thus one center is the Book with its Interpreter, and the other is the Universal House of Justice guided by God to decide on whatever is not explicitly revealed in the Book.
(7 December 1969, published in "Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1968-1973", pp. 42-43)

Is this saying something like the interpretation of the scriptures must be inspired in the same way that the scriptures themselves were inspired?

In this sentence below, does 'he and he alone' refer back to the immediately preceding 'the divinely inspired Interpreter' or earlier to the 'Bahá'u'lláh'?


The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means.

If you prefer to take this discussion back to its original context in the discussion Shuny and I were having here on Revelation, I've posted this question that that thread as well:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=124356#post124356

Sen McGlinn
11-22-2014, 05:26 PM
If you prefer to take this discussion back to its original context in the discussion Shuny and I were having here on Revelation, I've posted this question that that thread as well:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=124356#post124356

The question fits better in the thread on Divine Revelation. I have answered there, but without reading all the earlier posts

squint
11-25-2014, 11:37 AM
People seem to read into the scriptures anything they happen to think. And undoubtedly the historical churches of christianity have been rabidly anti-semetic nearly from the beginning and particularly so with Roman catholics. This factor has toned down some in the last few centuries but the echoes seem to remain and perpetuate regardless.

Omniskeptical
11-25-2014, 01:38 PM
People seem to read into the scriptures anything they happen to think. And undoubtedly the historical churches of christianity have been rabidly anti-semetic nearly from the beginning and particularly so with Roman catholics. This factor has toned down some in the last few centuries but the echoes seem to remain and perpetuate regardless.When Judaism stops its quest to tell Christians that their traditions are all completely false and its book; you will see a lot less hostility towards Jews. Jews ask the same thing of us. Who has the double standard now?

I would also like to note that in the NT, the Jews are usually Judai, and that the book concerns itself with Israel rather than Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. The appearance of anti-Jewish passages are actually anti-Herod, and anti-Pharisee.

squint
11-26-2014, 08:10 AM
When Judaism stops its quest to tell Christians that their traditions are all completely false and its book; you will see a lot less hostility towards Jews. Jews ask the same thing of us. Who has the double standard now?

Even most unbelievers on both sides will generally acknowledge that we're all dealing with the same God in either O.T. or N.T. There are of course 'some' Jews who will claim otherwise. They are entitled to their opinions. Just as there are still some christians who disavow the O.T. as being applicable to N.T. believers just as they may believe that the N.T. doesn't apply to them.


I would also like to note that in the NT, the Jews are usually Judai, and that the book concerns itself with Israel rather than Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. The appearance of anti-Jewish passages are actually anti-Herod, and anti-Pharisee.

You would be perhaps an example of my statement: "there are still some christians who disavow the O.T. as being applicable to N.T. believers."

Jesus didn't make that claim nor did the O.T. Word of God make that claim.

37818
11-27-2014, 01:06 PM
Everyone who are not saved are under the bondage of the devil. So any verse which accuses Judeans is not to be understood any differently that that of the unsaved nations. ". . . To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me. " -- Acts 26:18.

shunyadragon
11-28-2014, 04:30 PM
When Judaism stops its quest to tell Christians that their traditions are all completely false and its book; you will see a lot less hostility towards Jews. Jews ask the same thing of us. Who has the double standard now?

This a problem on what justifies violence and hostility against another belief system or religion. It is never justified. Interesting is the view from the Baha'i perspective, is that the hostility and violence between religions is the rejection of the Progressive Revelation from God, causing human selfish motivations, hostility and violent polarizations. The Divine compassion and love for all of humanity is lost, and humanity suffers.


I would also like to note that in the NT, the Jews are usually Judai, and that the book concerns itself with Israel rather than Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. The appearance of anti-Jewish passages are actually anti-Herod, and anti-Pharisee.

This may be your view, but the reality of history is different.

Omniskeptical
12-16-2014, 02:32 PM
This may be your view, but the reality of history is different.The NT cannot be blamed for the stupid squabbles of orthodox Jews, and Trinitarian Christians.

shunyadragon
12-19-2014, 05:28 AM
The NT cannot be blamed for the stupid squabbles of orthodox Jews, and Trinitarian Christians.

The stupid squabbles you speak of result in Doctrine, Dogma, and the body of beliefs

Omniskeptical
12-19-2014, 12:31 PM
The stupid squabbles you speak of result in Doctrine, Dogma, and the body of beliefsModern Jews don't believe Jesus is a statement made by God. If Jesus was human, and he most certainly was, there is no reason he shouldn't be. Jews have a hard time believing this, but it doesn't make their doubts anyless cynical.

shunyadragon
01-26-2015, 03:43 PM
Modern Jews don't believe Jesus is a statement made by God. If Jesus was human, and he most certainly was, there is no reason he shouldn't be. Jews have a hard time believing this, but it doesn't make their doubts anyless cynical.

I do not believe cynicism is the issue. Apparently the argument presented by Jesus and converted Jews to most Jews of the time was not convincing, except to the Gentiles of Rome. By~600 AD there were few Jewish Christians. Yes, Jews, Baha'is and Muslims will not accept the Trinitarian belief in the nature of God, but that should not inspire nor justify violence against those that believe differently. Muslims consider the Baha'i Faith to be Heretical even though they are both share the same Monotheism, and in most Muslim countries the punishment for being a Baha'i is death.

Steven
01-31-2015, 10:39 AM
Thanks for the article; very interesting. It's rather sophomoric to attempt to fit today's buzz phrases into Biblical context. I guess the root of it all is that man is evil in nature and is in need of a savior. However, this Scripture in Romans neatly sums the point up:


What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" Romans 3:9

Key word "all" in "all are under sin."

- Steven

Omniskeptical
02-05-2015, 08:04 AM
I do not believe cynicism is the issue. Apparently the argument presented by Jesus and converted Jews to most Jews of the time was not convincing, except to the Gentiles of Rome. By~600 AD there were few Jewish Christians. Yes, Jews, Baha'is and Muslims will not accept the Trinitarian belief in the nature of God, but that should not inspire nor justify violence against those that believe differently. Muslims consider the Baha'i Faith to be Heretical even though they are both share the same Monotheism, and in most Muslim countries the punishment for being a Baha'i is death.Cynicism is most certainly the issue. Some Jews don't believe in the afterlife; and most don't understand how even with God's help, as if that kind help existed today, that Jesus's suggestions are the least which is necessary for bringing peace. And yet the apostles had opponents who were wicked, making the suggestions of Jesus useless on them.

shunyadragon
02-07-2015, 03:50 PM
Cynicism is most certainly the issue. Some Jews don't believe in the afterlife; and most don't understand how even with God's help, as if that kind help existed today, that Jesus's suggestions are the least which is necessary for bringing peace. And yet the apostles had opponents who were wicked, making the suggestions of Jesus useless on them.

Cynicism is a personal thing, and should not be an issue. Anyone may be cynical about anything. It is more simply a matter of believing yes and no. Go back and follow this line of thinking and where your going with this.


When Judaism stops its quest to tell Christians that their traditions are all completely false and its book; you will see a lot less hostility towards Jews. Jews ask the same thing of us. Who has the double standard now?

I would also like to note that in the NT, the Jews are usually Judai, and that the book concerns itself with Israel rather than Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. The appearance of anti-Jewish passages are actually anti-Herod, and anti-Pharisee.

Nothing here justifies hostility or violence toward another religion, particularly Judaism. Just because one is cynical does not warrant any such violence nor hostility either.

OU812
02-09-2015, 10:08 AM
Apparently the argument presented by Jesus and converted Jews to most Jews of the time was not convincing, except to the Gentiles of Rome.

No.

KingsGambit
02-09-2015, 10:17 AM
Currently I'm reading John: The Maverick Gospel by Robert Kysar. Despite the fact that Kysar was a Christian, he thought the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic because of the author's use of Jews, and that we should try to downplay it/minimize it today, and that those parts weren't inspired. Kysar mentioned that some have suggested that "Jews" is better understood as "Judeans" but didn't take the idea very seriously. I think that's a shame; I really do think that's the solution here and there is no reason to accuse an entire book of the Bible of anti-Semitism.

shunyadragon
02-09-2015, 12:44 PM
Currently I'm reading John: The Maverick Gospel by Robert Kysar. Despite the fact that Kysar was a Christian, he thought the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic because of the author's use of Jews, and that we should try to downplay it/minimize it today, and that those parts weren't inspired. Kysar mentioned that some have suggested that "Jews" is better understood as "Judeans" but didn't take the idea very seriously. I think that's a shame; I really do think that's the solution here and there is no reason to accuse an entire book of the Bible of anti-Semitism.

Why the accusation, well, ah . . . history is a witness. No the accusation does not concern the whole book.

KingsGambit
02-09-2015, 12:48 PM
Why the accusation, well, ah . . . history is a witness. No the accusation does not concern the whole book.

It's a Christian scholar making that accusation :shrug:

shunyadragon
02-10-2015, 07:56 AM
It's a Christian scholar making that accusation :shrug:

OK, but this does not really change anything. Religions are set in history and history reflects the nature of the religion. Yes, different scholars can come to different conclusions based on how the selectively emphasize different parts of the New Testament. Nonetheless, there sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.

robrecht
02-10-2015, 12:54 PM
OK, but this does not really change anything. Religions are set in history and history reflects the nature of the religion. Yes, different scholars can come to different conclusions based on how the selectively emphasize different parts of the New Testament. Nonetheless, there sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.
At the very least it demonstrates that Christians (and followers of other religions) can engage in honest, critical thinking about their scriptures, history and current praxis. By the way, I have never seen you engage or express any critical thought regarding the Baha'i faith.

Truthseeker
02-10-2015, 03:18 PM
sufficient citations in the NT that support the strong anti-Jewish, often very violent and destructive with ethnic cleansing, in history of Christianity. These quotes are very real.The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

KingsGambit
02-10-2015, 03:33 PM
The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

He was more getting at that it has occurred throughout Christian history. Even my seminary class acknowledges this, and a class I took in college on the Holocaust extensively documented how this frequently happened via pogroms during the Middle Ages. None of this means that it was actually biblically justified, just that it happened.

shunyadragon
02-17-2015, 10:19 AM
The history of Christianity does include instances of violence against Jews, including ethnic cleansing. But please give book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that shows violence like that. There is Mark 14:47, but that was coming to the defense of Jesus, not anti-Semitic.

It is far more then instances if anti-Judaism (not truly anti-Semitic). How about Matthew. There is also the compounded problems in citations in John, the letters, Revelation and Mark as well. You may defend the quotes in Mark as in defense of Jesus and not anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic) but the putting all the citations in context represents an anti-Jewish scenario, which resulted in many cases of wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing, ethnic hatred and negative stereotypes.



Gospel of Matthew

Main article: Rejection of Jesus

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[Matt 21:42] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:


"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"
—Matthew 23:31-33

Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Shelly Matthews writes:


"In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent."[8]

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[9]


"Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation."

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]

shunyadragon
02-17-2015, 10:21 AM
At the very least it demonstrates that Christians (and followers of other religions) can engage in honest, critical thinking about their scriptures, history and current praxis. By the way, I have never seen you engage or express any critical thought regarding the Baha'i faith.

Three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave, and avoiding the subject, scripture, and evidence concerning the thread by creating mindless diversions not relevant to the subject.

robrecht
02-18-2015, 05:41 AM
Three stooges, Duck, Bob and Weave, and avoiding the subject, scripture, and evidence concerning the thread by creating mindless diversions not relevant to the subject.You are ignorant of the fact that I have not at all avoided the subject. I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. Precisely because I deplore religious bigotry, Christian and otherwise, in all its forms, I will also note it wherever it occurs. You do not condemn the anti-semitic remarks of Baha'i and, in fact, are never critical of any aspect of the Baha'i faith. This is why you open yourself up to the criticisms of hypocrisy and your Baha'i apologetic stance as 'boosterism'.

shunyadragon
02-18-2015, 09:00 AM
You are ignorant of the fact that I have not at all avoided the subject. I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. Precisely because I deplore religious bigotry, Christian and otherwise, in all its forms, I will also note it wherever it occurs. You do not condemn the anti-semitic remarks of Baha'i and, in fact, are never critical of any aspect of the Baha'i faith. This is why you open yourself up to the criticisms of hypocrisy and your Baha'i apologetic stance as 'boosterism'.

Your posts are a witness of your avoidance and changing the subject in this thread.

Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?

robrecht
02-18-2015, 11:44 AM
Your posts are a witness of your avoidance and changing the subject in this thread. Untrue, I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. I have never avoided this topic. I did add the aspect of trying to get you to be self-critical of the Baha'i faith, as are many Christians regarding their faith. You do not seem to be able to do this.


Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.

Adrift
02-18-2015, 11:51 AM
Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.

Would it be true to say, though, that at that point, Christianity was not considered truly distinct from Judaism? Would we not have seen similar polemical dialogue between the Sadducees and the Pharisees if we had access to their writings?

robrecht
02-18-2015, 12:21 PM
Would it be true to say, though, that at that point, Christianity was not considered truly distinct from Judaism? Would we not have seen similar polemical dialogue between the Sadducees and the Pharisees if we had access to their writings?
Yes. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls to see much more intense polemic between other contemporary Jewish groups.

shunyadragon
02-18-2015, 04:45 PM
Untrue, I have here and elsewhere many times condemned the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history. I have never avoided this topic. I did add the aspect of trying to get you to be self-critical of the Baha'i faith, as are many Christians regarding their faith. You do not seem to be able to do this.

Condemning the history is obvious, but does not address the question.


Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.

Does not address the question: Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?

These were common conflicts as occur throughout history, but the ~1600+ years of large scale brutal persecution, ethnic cleansing, venomous hatred, and denigration cannot be compared to what you describe above in numbers, magnitude in history.

Omniskeptical
02-18-2015, 08:27 PM
It does not address the question: Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?I think the Muslims got the ball rolling.

But no, the Koine Greek doesn't support Anti-Jewishness, but rather Anti-Judahism against the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Judah were not supposed get excessive pay for there law enforcement duties. And there are many instances of the vocative which in Greek is neither singular nor plural but mass nounege. There is nothing condemning Israel in the New Testament, and even Acts is misrendered to condemn. Acts has several words to alarm the average Israelite about the Elders. Communist countries aren't full of wicked people, rather it is the free countries which have the most decadence; and the US had decadence even before, during and after the revolution.

EDIT: The Jews don't call themselves Israelites anymore; naming themselves after Judah. Yet there aren't Levites but rather Jews who become Rabbis. The old testament history books/scrolls (i.e the real prophetical books) end too early with Judah being conquered while the kingship of Israel was still active. Nothing is said about what happened to the "South" Israelite military, just the "North" Israelite military, aka Judah/Benjamin.

shunyadragon
02-18-2015, 09:19 PM
I think the Muslims got the ball rolling.

Huh?!?!?!


But no, the Koine Greek doesn't support Anti-Jewishness, but rather Anti-Judahism against the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Judah were not supposed get excessive pay for there law enforcement duties. And there are many instances of the vocative which in Greek is neither singular nor plural but mass nounege. There is nothing condemning Israel in the New Testament, and even Acts is misrendered to condemn. Acts has several words to alarm the average Israelite about the Elders. Communist countries aren't full of wicked people, rather it is the free countries which have the most decadence; and the US had decadence even before, during and after the revolution.

All over terminology and history like a shotgun affair, and does not address the question.

The period of the history of Christianity I would reference would begin with Constantine to the modern times of the 20th Century.




EDIT: The Jews don't call themselves Israelites anymore; naming themselves after Judah. Yet there aren't Levites but rather Jews who become Rabbis. The old testament history books/scrolls (i.e the real prophetical books) end too early with Judah being conquered while the kingship of Israel was still active. Nothing is said about what happened to the "South" Israelite military, just the "North" Israelite military, aka Judah/Benjamin.

Does not answer the question at all. Splitting frog hairs on terminology. I prefer anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism as reasonably interchangeable. Anti-Semitism does not work because the issue is not Semites.

robrecht
02-18-2015, 09:30 PM
Condemning the history is obvious, but does not address the question.


Does not address the question: Is there a scriptural basis for anti-Jewishness in the history of Christianity or not?

These were common conflicts as occur throughout history, but the ~1600+ years of large scale brutal persecution, ethnic cleansing, venomous hatred, and denigration cannot be compared to what you describe above in numbers, magnitude in history.
Do you not understand English? You asked a question. I answered, "Of course." How can you miss that?

Chrawnus
02-18-2015, 09:50 PM
To deny that people have used the NT to justify their misguided persecution of the Jews would be to stick our heads in the sand.

But at the same time it's also worthwhile to point out that there's nothing negative in the NT said about the Jews for which you can't find something equally negative mentioned about them in the OT. If the NT is anti-semitic then the OT is just as anti-semitic as well, and on basically the same grounds.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 06:18 AM
Do you not understand English? You asked a question. I answered, "Of course." How can you miss that?

Your use of 'Of course' was not clear. It was used in general reference to many conflicts or polemics of the time, which was not the question.


Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 06:28 AM
To deny that people have used the NT to justify their misguided persecution of the Jews would be to stick our heads in the sand.

But at the same time it's also worthwhile to point out that there's nothing negative in the NT said about the Jews for which you can't find something equally negative mentioned about them in the OT. If the NT is anti-Semitic then the OT is just as anti-Semitic as well, and on basically the same grounds.

Disagree. First, anti-Semitism is not the issue here. The NT is not anti-Semitic. The references in the NT are specific anti-Jewish of anti-Judaism. The result of ethnic cleansing, persecution exceed anything in the OT in numbers, magnitude, and intensity then anything in the OT. Yes, the OT is a problem in these issues, but they were more primitive Bronze to Iron Age tribes and kingdoms, and this is what these people did throughout ancient history, with the possible exception of the early Buddhist kingdoms,

robrecht
02-19-2015, 06:33 AM
Your use of 'Of course' was not clear. It was used in general reference to many conflicts or polemics of the time, which was not the question.It was a direct answer to your question with additional explanation. Attention to context may help you understand better in the future.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 07:13 AM
It was a direct answer to your question with additional explanation. Attention to context may help you understand better in the future.

Not so direct. In fact a little broad and vague. A simple 'yes' would be equivalent to 'of course.'




Of course, much of the New Testament witnesses to the polemical and deteriorating relations between various early Christian communities and factions and other Jewish groups.

robrecht
02-19-2015, 07:32 AM
Not so direct. In fact a little broad and vague. A simple 'yes' would be equivalent to 'of course.'
Nonsense. By adding explanation, my response was more specific, the opposite of vague. Accepting only a 'yes' or 'no' answer, excluding the opportunity for additional specificity, is generally considered an indication of hostility.

KingsGambit
02-19-2015, 07:57 AM
IMO quibbling over the precise definition of "anti-Semitic" is an unnecessary distraction. Yes, there are other Semitic peoples. But the term historically refers to hatred of/discrimination against Jews.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 08:05 AM
IMO quibbling over the precise definition of "anti-Semitic" is an unnecessary distraction. Yes, there are other Semitic peoples. But the term historically refers to hatred of/discrimination against Jews.

IMO it is worth separating, because there are anti-Semitic views of stereotyping people of the Middle East such as Jews and Muslims, and even though it may refer to Jews it is primarily a racial prejudice. The NT references are specifically anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism, and not racial. I won't quibble over terminology if these terms are considered equivalent in this discussion.

robrecht
02-19-2015, 08:15 AM
IMO it is worth separating, because there are anti-Semitic views of stereotyping people of the Middle East such as Jews and Muslims, and even though it may refer to Jews it is primarily a racial prejudice. The NT references are specifically anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism, and not racial.
Still not specific enough and anachronistic. Conflict between Jesus and some of his disciples with other Jews and other factions of his followers probably arose during Jesus' lifetime. Certainly after his death, there were Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah with various viewpoints and multiple Jewish groups who did not accept Jesus as Messiah. As Gentiles were added, there were additional viewpoints, incorporating a wide range of attitudes toward the various Judaisms of the time.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 09:29 AM
Still not specific enough and anachronistic. Conflict between Jesus and some of his disciples with other Jews and other factions of his followers probably arose during Jesus' lifetime. Certainly after his death, there were Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah with various viewpoints and multiple Jewish groups who did not accept Jesus as Messiah. As Gentiles were added, there were additional viewpoints, incorporating a wide range of attitudes toward the various Judaisms of the time.

These are not the conflicts that resulted in the history of the conflicts, persecution and ethnic cleansing that began with Constantine and continued for 1800+ years. The exception is the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the Resurrection by Jews. The NT as compiled at that time and contained the distinct anti-Jewish statements and concepts that inspired the history of violence against Jews.






Gospel of Matthew

Main article: Rejection of Jesus

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[Matt 21:42] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:


"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"—Matthew 23:31-33

Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Shelly Matthews writes:


"In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent."[8]

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[9]


"Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation."

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]

robrecht
02-19-2015, 10:33 AM
These are not the conflicts that resulted in the history of the conflicts, persecution and ethnic cleansing that began with Constantine and continued for 1800+ years. The exception is the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and the Resurrection by Jews. The NT as compiled at that time and contained the distinct anti-Jewish statements and concepts that inspired the history of violence against Jews.






Gospel of Matthew

Main article: Rejection of Jesus

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[Matt 21:42] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:


"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"—Matthew 23:31-33

Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.

Shelly Matthews writes:


"In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent."[8]

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[9]


"Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation."

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]
You asked about period in which the New Testament was being written. Using later interpretations of much earlier texts, even earlier sources, and evolving usage of terms is anachronistic. You need a hermeneutic that is better supported by good historical method and scholarship.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 10:52 AM
You asked about period in which the New Testament was being written. Using later interpretations of much earlier texts, even earlier sources, and evolving usage of terms is anachronistic. You need a hermeneutic that is better supported by good historical method and scholarship.

The earlier texts before ~200 - ~400 AD are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns. The argument as I described before, begins with Constantine concerning NT referenced above, and that is what the is considered sacred text through the anti-Jewish Christian history in question.

I did not 'ask about' this earlier period where the known texts are insufficient for any argument either way.

robrecht
02-19-2015, 11:01 AM
The earlier texts before ~200 - ~400 AD are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns. The argument as I described before, begins with Constantine concerning NT referenced above, and that is what the is considered sacred text through the anti-Jewish Christian history in question.

I did not 'ask about' this earlier period where the known texts are insufficient for any argument either way.
You asked about the New Testament, which must be understood in its historical context. Otherwise, you will continue to use New Testament texts in an anachronistic manner.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 11:11 AM
You asked about the New Testament, which must be understood in its historical context. Otherwise, you will continue to use New Testament texts in an anachronistic manner.

Yea, I asked about the NT, but the NT did not exist prior to ~200 AD. The historical context and the anti-Jewishness of the NT began with Constantine and the compilation of the NT as we no it.

robrecht
02-19-2015, 11:29 AM
Yea, I asked about the NT, but the NT did not exist prior to ~200 AD. The historical context and the anti-Jewishness of the NT began with Constantine and the compilation of the NT as we [kn]no[w] it.
You need to educate yourself on New Testament scholarship. If you want to understand the texts of the New Testament, you needed to study them in the historical context in which they were written. If you only want to discuss the canon of the New Testament after it was relatively fixed and universal, your use of New Testament texts will continue to be anachronistic.

Omniskeptical
02-19-2015, 01:10 PM
Huh?!?!?!



All over terminology and history like a shotgun affair, and does not address the question.

The period of the history of Christianity I would reference would begin with Constantine to the modern times of the 20th Century.





Does not answer the question at all. Splitting frog hairs on terminology. I prefer anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism as reasonably interchangeable. Anti-Semitism does not work because the issue is not Semites.I didn't suspect you had a comprehension problem. You haven't even taken into account how the Jews and the Muslims used to be close. And they were.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 03:06 PM
You need to educate yourself on New Testament scholarship. If you want to understand the texts of the New Testament, you needed to study them in the historical context in which they were written. If you only want to discuss the canon of the New Testament after it was relatively fixed and universal, your use of New Testament texts will continue to be anachronistic.

Your creating a high fog index to avoid the issues of the thread. If you wish to add anything of scholarship that contributes to this subject please do. The facts of historical persecution, ethnic cleansing in the name of Christianity for over 1700 years based on the citations I provided are very real and factual. The New Testament they used was their reference. How the references became as they are may be of some value if you wish to provide an enlightened view, please do.

What then is your explanation, if not the NT text and beliefs, then what?

robrecht
02-19-2015, 03:36 PM
Your creating a high fog index to avoid the issues of the thread. If you wish to add anything of scholarship that contributes to this subject please do. The facts of historical persecution, ethnic cleansing in the name of Christianity for over 1700 years based on the citations I provided are very real and factual. The New Testament they used was their reference. How the references became as they are may be of some value if with to pro vide an enlightened view, please do.

What then is your explanation, if not the NT text and beliefs, then what?
The issue is simply if you want to understand texts in their original historical contexts or if you merely want to focus on later, anachronistic interpretations in entirely different sociological environments. When the texts were being written, the Jewish Christians were mostly involved in polemics as the upstart party without power and subject to abuse by Jewish religious authorities. Some of the same texts were later used by Christian religious and secular authorities to oppress Jewish minorities that no longer had the upper hand. I have avoided nothing.

shunyadragon
02-19-2015, 05:42 PM
The issue is simply if you want to understand texts in their original historical contexts or if you merely want to focus on later, anachronistic interpretations in entirely different sociological environments. When the texts were being written, the Jewish Christians were mostly involved in polemics as the upstart party without power and subject to abuse by Jewish religious authorities. Some of the same texts were later used by Christian religious and secular authorities to oppress Jewish minorities that no longer had the upper hand. I have avoided nothing.

First, it is not my interpretation that is the one in question. It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews.

The persecution began with Constantine, and oppression by Jewish authorities in the early years was not the main issue described in the NT references. Over 1700 years of persecution and ethnic cleansing cannot be explained away by this. The reasons cited most often is that Jews are ones responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and the rejection of the claims of Jesus. The passion plays of Europe describing the Jews as 'Christ killers.' This is based on NT scripture and not early persecution of Christians by Jews. In fact the degree and intensity of this claim is questionable since the principle source of persecution in the early years was by Rome for both Christians and Jews. I believe this reflects the best facts of history.

Oh yea, you have avoided the issue with side bars.

robrecht
02-19-2015, 08:03 PM
First, it is not my interpretation that is the one in question. I never said it was, but it is the interpretation you are referring to.


It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews. There is no argument about this.


The persecution began with Constantine, and oppression by Jewish authorities in the early years was not the main issue described in the NT references. First, Constantine did not write the New Testament. Second, there are always (at least) two sides of every polemic. Third, the Jewish Christians who saw themselves as persecuted by Jewish authorities interpreted such as taking up their own cross and following in Christ's footsteps so the issue of Jesus martyrdom and the persecution of his followers by Jewish authorities were inextricably related by authors of the New Testament.


Over 1700 years of persecution and ethnic cleansing cannot be explained away by this. I have not explained anything away; I have merely tried to get you to be more specific and better informed about the differences between the original texts in their historical contexts and later interpretations in much different historical and sociological contexts.


The reasons cited most often is that Jews are ones responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and the rejection of the claims of Jesus. Inextricably related, as explained above.


The passion plays of Europe describing the Jews as 'Christ killers.' This is based on NT scripture and not early persecution of Christians by Jews. I never said it did. You are still failing to distinguish between different historical contexts. Anachronistic.


In fact the degree and intensity of this claim is questionable since the principle source of persecution in the early years was by Rome for both Christians and Jews. I believe this reflects the best facts of history. Again, you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you imagine is my 'claim'.


Oh yea, you have avoided the issue with side bars.Properly understanding texts in their original context is the single, central issue of this thread.

Omniskeptical
02-20-2015, 07:46 AM
It is the predominate interpretation of Christians for the 1700 year history I am referring to, which resulted in wide spread persecution, ethnic cleansing and religious hatred of Jews.But the interpretation can be--is proven to be 100 percent wrong. And the term Jew is not synonymous with the word Israelite in the New Testament.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 10:12 AM
But the interpretation can be--is proven to be 100 percent wrong.

HUH?!?!?!!? No references, nothing 100 % proven either way.


. . . and the term Jew is not synonymous with the word Israelite in the New Testament.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska?

In reality Israelites are Jews. Jews of the New Testament and the Old Testament are the ancestors of most of the Jews today.

You need to explain how this is even remotely an issue.

Omniskeptical
02-20-2015, 10:34 AM
What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska? The word ιουδαιοι doesn't need to be referenced. Stop being lazy and look at the Greek.


In reality Israelites are Jews. Jews of the New Testament and the Old Testament are the ancestors of most of the Jews today. "Jews" is really Judai-- those of Judah.


You need to explain how this is even remotely an issue.In reality and modern context, there is nothing showing the Israelites becoming Judai only, thus you show your ignorance of the entire issue.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 11:07 AM
The word ιουδαιοι doesn't need to be referenced. Stop being lazy and look at the Greek.

"Jews" is really Judai-- those of Judah.

I am uncertain how picking at terminology has any meaning here. The term Israelite is a modern term for the Jewish citizens of Israel. There are Jews all over the world and throughout history mostly descendants of the Jews of the Middle East in the OT and the NT. So what?!?!?!?


In reality and modern context, there is nothing showing the Israelites becoming Judai only, thus you show your ignorance of the entire issue.

Jews became Israelites with the founding of the state of Israel. You need to give a better explanation how this is relevant to the issue at hand.

Simply the Jews of Europe and the rest of the world are the descendants of the Jews of the tribes of Palestine region, and of course the Jews of New and Old Testaments.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 11:34 AM
What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska?

In reality Israelites are Jews. Jews of the New Testament and the Old Testament are the ancestors of most of the Jews today.

You need to explain how this is even remotely an issue.Because you are using the term anachronistically, as I've tried to point out to you before. Polemics with the Judean leadership in Jerusalem, which is part of the semantic range of the contemporary Greek usage, is not the same as being opposed to what is meant today by the Jewish religion or race.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 11:36 AM
The term Israelite is a modern term for the Jewish citizens of Israel. ... Jews became Israelites with the founding of the state of Israel. Completely false. Read the New Testament before you attempt to make such ridiculous pronouncements.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 02:44 PM
Because you are using the term anachronistically, as I've tried to point out to you before. Polemics with the Judean leadership in Jerusalem, which is part of the semantic range of the contemporary Greek usage, is not the same as being opposed to what is meant today by the Jewish religion or race.

Your splitting from hairs over terminology. Jews is a satisfactory term for Jews throughout history what ever you want to call them. Your dancing dodging and weaving in meaningless details avoiding the main issue of the thread.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 02:45 PM
Completely false. Read the New Testament before you attempt to make such ridiculous pronouncements.

I may have slipped on wording, but Israelites and Jews are interchangeable here regardless. In the contemporary sense, yes residents of Israel are Israelites.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 02:45 PM
Your splitting from hairs over terminology. Jews is a satisfactory term for Jews throughout history what ever you want to call them. Your dancing dodging and weaving in meaningless details avoiding the main issue of the thread.If you are not interested in the meaning of the terms you use poorly, I cannot help you.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 02:46 PM
I may have slipped on wording, but Israelites and Jews are interchangeable here regardless.Translation. You're just making stuff up and you got caught.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 03:27 PM
If you are not interested in the meaning of the terms you use poorly, I cannot help you.

The differentiation of Jews and Israelites is not important to the subject of the thread, both would subject to wide scale pogroms, persecution, ethnic cleansing by Christians over the centuries since Constantine based on the scripture I cited, and other references.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 03:45 PM
First, Constantine did not write the New Testament. Second, there are always (at least) two sides of every polemic. Third, the Jewish Christians who saw themselves as persecuted by Jewish authorities interpreted such as taking up their own cross and following in Christ's footsteps so the issue of Jesus martyrdom and the persecution of his followers by Jewish authorities were inextricably related by authors of the New Testament.

I never said Constantine wrote the NT, but nonetheless . . .

The NT was compiled, edited and rewritten under Constantine's reign and authority.by Eusebius. Orthodox Christianity begins here.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 03:48 PM
The differentiation of Jews and Israelites is not important to the subject of the thread, both would subject to wide scale pogroms, persecution, ethnic cleansing by Christians over the centuries since Constantine based on the scripture I cited, and other references.Nonsense. It is absolutely essential to the subject of this thread, which is meant to discuss whether the New Testament is antisemitic. You seem to think the thread is about Constantine and his or others' misunderstanding of terms as used in various historical contexts, and you seem to be content to continue in your own indifference to understanding the texts of the New Testament as intended by their original authors.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 03:49 PM
I never said Constantine wrote the NT, but nonetheless . . .

The NT was compiled, edited and rewritten under Constantine's reign and authority.by Eusebius. Orthodox Christianity begins here.Exactly which parts are you claiming were rewritten under Constantine. Making more stuff up?

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 03:52 PM
Nonsense. It is absolutely essential to the subject of this thread, which is meant to discuss whether the New Testament is antisemitic. You seem to think the thread is about Constantine and his or others' misunderstanding of terms as used in various historical contexts, and you seem to be content to continue in your own indifference to understanding the texts of the New Testament as intended by their original authors.

Never said this of Constantine, nor is it about him specifically, except that anti-Jewish pogroms, and NT scripture that supports this in Christian history was compiled under his authority.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 03:58 PM
Never said this of Constantine, nor is it about, except that anti-Jewish pogroms, and NT scripture that supports this in Christian history was compiled under his authority.So why do you keep bringing up Constantine? The thread is about the New Testament, which was written prior to the time of Constantine. You may want to believe some speculative conspiracy theory about the New Testament being rewritten under Constantine, but you cannot substantiate this.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 04:58 PM
So why do you keep bringing up Constantine? The thread is about the New Testament, which was written prior to the time of Constantine. You may want to believe some speculative conspiracy theory about the New Testament being rewritten under Constantine, but you cannot substantiate this.

The New Testament was quite variable and inconsistent prior to Constantine. The Canon accepted by Constantine is basically the same as what was made Canon by the Second Council of Trullan 692 AD. It represents the beginning of the pogroms against the Jews.



The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD. For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s.[1] The Biblical canon was the result of debate and research, reaching its final term for Catholics at the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, when the Old Testament Canon was finalized in the Catholic Church as well.

Constantine began the first organized Christian efforts to restrict and persecute Christians in Rome.



More next post

AD 306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. 3,4

315 AD: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.

325 AD: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 05:36 PM
The enmity of Jews and Christians doubtless dates from the time when the chosen people first denied the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus, and the Christians departed from the Jewish law. It was not, however, until the time of Constantine that Christians could make their opponents feel the terrors of the sword.

"The zeal which Constantine had for Christianity set him against the Jews, as they were enemies to the gospel. He subjected to punishment those who should become proselytes to Judaism, and he ruled the Jews with a strict and heavy hand. He ordered churches to be built, not only where they were necessary, but in those towns and villages which were inhabited almost only by Jews, which must have been a great mortification to the people. He made a law, as an ancient author tells us, which condemned those who should speak evil of Christ to lose half their estate."

Constantine issued an edict in which, after upbraiding the Jews with stoning to death any persons who quitted their religion (which they were authorized to do by their divine law), he condemned them and their accomplices to the same inhuman punishment. He prohibited them from circumcising their slaves, and ordered all those to be set at liberty who had been so used, or who were willing to embrace Christianity. If the slave of a Christian became a Christian he remained a slave, but the slave of a Jew had only to become a Christian to claim his freedom. The Jew who married a Christian incurred the penalty of death.

"Under the reign of Constantine, the Jews became the subjects of their revolted children, nor was it long before they experienced the bitterness of domestic tyranny. The civil immunities which had been granted, or conferred, by Severus, were gradually repealed by the Christian princes; and a rash tumult, excited by the Jews of Palestine, seemed to justify the lucrative models of oppression, which were invented by the bishops and eunuchs of the court of Constantius."

The edict of Hadrian, prohibiting them from ever approaching the site of Jerusalem, was renewed and enforced, and St. Chrysostom even assures us that when they assembled to rebuild their holy city, Constantine cut off their ears and dispersed them as fugitive slaves throughout the provinces of the empire. Eutychius adds that the emperor obliged them all to be baptised and to eat pork at
Easter. Constantius burnt all their cities in Palestine and slew all he could find, without sparing even the women and children.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 06:56 PM
Exactly as I predicted. You cannot substantiate your speculative conspiracy theory that the New Testament was rewritten under Constantine.

shunyadragon
02-20-2015, 07:44 PM
Exactly as I predicted. You cannot substantiate your speculative conspiracy theory that the New Testament was rewritten under Constantine.

You cannot document that parts of the books were not. Different versions came in and the uniform version came out for Christian Rome, which was the first step of standardizing scripture that in future lad the foundation for the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. Not the topic of the thread, nor an important point in my argument. The New Testament was compiled, edited and parts different in different version leading up to this compilation, which remained fairly constant beyond this.

The issue is Constantine began the systematic persecution under the beginning of Christian Rome. That is my reason for beginning with Constantine.

robrecht
02-20-2015, 08:09 PM
You cannot document that parts of the books were not. You still have not put forward anything specific enough to be disproven. No one disputes that there are always scribal and text-critical issues of all sorts, but you must put forward a specific text-critical argument before it can be demolished.


Different versions came in and the uniform version came out for Christian Rome, which was the first step of standardizing scripture that in future lad the foundation for the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church. Not the topic of the thread, nor an important point in my argument.You cannot substantiate your claim so you say it is not important. It is as important as whatever degree of credibility you expect.


The New Testament was compiled, edited and parts different in different version leading up to this compilation, which remained fairly constant beyond this. So what? Where is the evidence for the specific anti-Jewish revisions that you claim were added?


The issue is Constantine began the systematic persecution under the beginning of Christian Rome. That is my reason for beginning with Constantine.But the thread is about the New Testament, and whether it is anti-semitic. It is not about Constantine.

shunyadragon
02-21-2015, 09:17 AM
You still have not put forward anything specific enough to be disproven. No one disputes that there are always scribal and text-critical issues of all sorts, but you must put forward a specific text-critical argument before it can be demolished.

Not an important issue here


You cannot substantiate your claim so you say it is not important. It is as important as whatever degree of credibility you expect.

Not trying to substantiate that claim. The only claim here is Constantine established the first uniform standard NT, and he began the first systematic persecution of Jews in Christian history which continued for ~1600 years or more. It is obvious that there was editing, and correcting and possibly rewriting involved, because prior to this there were many different versions floating around.


So what? Where is the evidence for the specific anti-Jewish revisions that you claim were added?

I never claimed 'specific anti-Jewish revisions' were apart of the NT compiled under Constantine's rule. All I said was the first uniform NT was compiled, and the first wide spread specific persecution of Jews and pogroms took place under Constantine's rule. If you persist in this foolishness please cite me directly where I made this claim.


But the thread is about the New Testament, and whether it is anti-semitic. It is not about Constantine.

I never claimed that it was specifically about Constantine, but Constantine is important, because under his rule the organized Christian anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms began.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 09:44 AM
Not an important issue here. Once again, when you cannot substantiate your claim, you retreat to saying it is not important here. If your credibility is not important to you, why should anyone put any credence in what you say?


Not trying to substantiate that claim. The only claim here is Constantine established the first uniform standard NT, and he began the first systematic persecution of Jews in Christian history which continued for ~1600 years or more. It is obvious that there was editing, and correcting and possibly rewriting involved, because prior to this there were many different versions floating around.

I never claimed 'specific anti-Jewish revisions' were apart of the NT compiled under Constantine's rule. All I said was the first uniform NT was compiled, and the first wide spread specific persecution of Jews and pogroms took place under Constantine's rule. If you persist in this foolishness please cite me directly where I made this claim. If you are not trying to say that Constantine played a role in making the New Testament antisemitic or anti-Jewish, then he is irrelevant to this thread. Note that you previously claimed that the New Testament was rewritten under Constantine. Now you are only claiming that it is possible that it was rewritten under Constantine. Retreat when called on to substantiate, and yet you accuse others of bob and weave tactics.


I never claimed that it was specifically about Constantine, but Constantine is important, because under his rule the organized Christian anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms began.This thread is not about Constantine or his role in the persecution of Jews, but whether or not the New Testament itself is antisemitic. You admit that Constantine did not write the New Testament. You seem to have abandoned any attempt to imply or substantiate a speculative conspiracy theory that the New Testament rewritten under Constantine with an anti-Jewish intent so it seems Constantine has no importance in this thread about whether or not the New Testament is antisemitic.

shunyadragon
02-21-2015, 03:00 PM
Once again, when you cannot substantiate your claim, you retreat to saying it is not important here. If your credibility is not important to you, why should anyone put any credence in what you say?

If you are not trying to say that Constantine played a role in making the New Testament antisemitic or anti-Jewish, then he is irrelevant to this thread. Note that you previously claimed that the New Testament was rewritten under Constantine. Now you are only claiming that it is possible that it was rewritten under Constantine. Retreat when called on to substantiate, and yet you accuse others of bob and weave tactics.

You missed the whole point and extensively misquoting me. Your oversimplification emphasis on the Bible being rewritten does not reflect my posts. I said nothing about the adding of anti-Jewish references as you stated. Your misrepresentation of my posts sinks your credibility to zero. Please cite me when you make mindless accusation or as is best move on and respond instead relying on blue smoke and mirrors. All I said was under Constantine all the previous versions were edited, compiled and possibly rewritten in parts to make one uniform version for a Christian Rome. Your neglecting the fact that the different versions floating around Rome were edited compiled and obviously rewritten or they would not have been different. Your harping on a meaningless wording of a previous post which I have since clarified.

The following points are clear.

(1) Constantine united Rome as a Christian Rome with a Christian Army under one NT, which is the point, and lets stick with that point.

(2) The uniform Christian NT contained the anti-Jewish references and thinking that were clearly powerful enough to motivate persecution on an organized level across Rome.

(3) Constantine's new Laws regulations and actions had the support of the NT which became more widely accepted in Christian Rome.

(2) Constantine then became the first Emperor to institute pogroms and persecution based on the Christian NT, and set the stage in history for ~1600 years or more of pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians.

shunyadragon
02-21-2015, 03:17 PM
Constantine is clearly relevant because he began Christian anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that continued for the next ~1,600 years.



The enmity of Jews and Christians doubtless dates from the time when the chosen people first denied the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus, and the Christians departed from the Jewish law. It was not, however, until the time of Constantine that Christians could make their opponents feel the terrors of the sword.

"The zeal which Constantine had for Christianity set him against the Jews, as they were enemies to the gospel. He subjected to punishment those who should become proselytes to Judaism, and he ruled the Jews with a strict and heavy hand. He ordered churches to be built, not only where they were necessary, but in those towns and villages which were inhabited almost only by Jews, which must have been a great mortification to the people. He made a law, as an ancient author tells us, which condemned those who should speak evil of Christ to lose half their estate."

Constantine issued an edict in which, after upbraiding the Jews with stoning to death any persons who quitted their religion (which they were authorized to do by their divine law), he condemned them and their accomplices to the same inhuman punishment. He prohibited them from circumcising their slaves, and ordered all those to be set at liberty who had been so used, or who were willing to embrace Christianity. If the slave of a Christian became a Christian he remained a slave, but the slave of a Jew had only to become a Christian to claim his freedom. The Jew who married a Christian incurred the penalty of death.

"Under the reign of Constantine, the Jews became the subjects of their revolted children, nor was it long before they experienced the bitterness of domestic tyranny. The civil immunities which had been granted, or conferred, by Severus, were gradually repealed by the Christian princes; and a rash tumult, excited by the Jews of Palestine, seemed to justify the lucrative models of oppression, which were invented by the bishops and eunuchs of the court of Constantius."

The edict of Hadrian, prohibiting them from ever approaching the site of Jerusalem, was renewed and enforced, and St. Chrysostom even assures us that when they assembled to rebuild their holy city, Constantine cut off their ears and dispersed them as fugitive slaves throughout the provinces of the empire. Eutychius adds that the emperor obliged them all to be baptised and to eat pork at
Easter. Constantius burnt all their cities in Palestine and slew all he could find, without sparing even the women and children.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 04:21 PM
Constantine is clearly relevant because he began Christian anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that continued for the next ~1,600 years.



The enmity of Jews and Christians doubtless dates from the time when the chosen people first denied the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus, and the Christians departed from the Jewish law. It was not, however, until the time of Constantine that Christians could make their opponents feel the terrors of the sword.

"The zeal which Constantine had for Christianity set him against the Jews, as they were enemies to the gospel. He subjected to punishment those who should become proselytes to Judaism, and he ruled the Jews with a strict and heavy hand. He ordered churches to be built, not only where they were necessary, but in those towns and villages which were inhabited almost only by Jews, which must have been a great mortification to the people. He made a law, as an ancient author tells us, which condemned those who should speak evil of Christ to lose half their estate."

Constantine issued an edict in which, after upbraiding the Jews with stoning to death any persons who quitted their religion (which they were authorized to do by their divine law), he condemned them and their accomplices to the same inhuman punishment. He prohibited them from circumcising their slaves, and ordered all those to be set at liberty who had been so used, or who were willing to embrace Christianity. If the slave of a Christian became a Christian he remained a slave, but the slave of a Jew had only to become a Christian to claim his freedom. The Jew who married a Christian incurred the penalty of death.

"Under the reign of Constantine, the Jews became the subjects of their revolted children, nor was it long before they experienced the bitterness of domestic tyranny. The civil immunities which had been granted, or conferred, by Severus, were gradually repealed by the Christian princes; and a rash tumult, excited by the Jews of Palestine, seemed to justify the lucrative models of oppression, which were invented by the bishops and eunuchs of the court of Constantius."

The edict of Hadrian, prohibiting them from ever approaching the site of Jerusalem, was renewed and enforced, and St. Chrysostom even assures us that when they assembled to rebuild their holy city, Constantine cut off their ears and dispersed them as fugitive slaves throughout the provinces of the empire. Eutychius adds that the emperor obliged them all to be baptised and to eat pork at
Easter. Constantius burnt all their cities in Palestine and slew all he could find, without sparing even the women and children. No one is saying that Constantine is not a hugely important historical figure, not merely with respect to antisemitism but for many many reasons. The issue is whether or not he is relevant to the question of whether or not the New Testament is antisemitic or not. Your quote does not address this issue.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 04:27 PM
You missed the whole point and extensively misquoting me. Your oversimplification emphasis on the Bible being rewritten does not reflect my posts. Nonsense. You certainly did speak about the New Testament being rewritten under Constantine. See, for example, your Post# 173:


... The NT was compiled, edited and rewritten under Constantine's reign and authority. ...
I understand you now regret having said something that you cannot substantiate when challenged to do so, but the proper response would be for you to retract your claim that cannot be supported and not accuse those who point this out to you as misquoting you.


I said nothing about the adding of anti-Jewish references as you stated.

Your misrepresentation of my posts sinks your credibility to zero. I was trying to figure out why you thought the supposed rewriting of the New Testament under Constantine was relevant. Note I have used the word 'seemingly' to try and figure out your posts and have also allowed that you might be merely trying to imply some relationship. Otherwise, I do not see any relevance of your bringing up supposed rewriting under Constantine. Perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt that your comment about rewriting under Constantine was supposed to have some relevance to the topic of this thread.


Please cite me when you make mindless accusation or as is best move on and respond instead relying on blue smoke and mirrors. All I said was under Constantine all the previous versions were edited, compiled and possibly rewritten in parts to make one uniform version for a Christian Rome. No, this is not true. You said 'the NT was rewritten under Constantine's reign and authority'. It is not truthful of you to later claim twice now (Post #183 and here) that you only said that it was possibly rewritten in parts.


Your neglecting the fact that the different versions floating around Rome were edited compiled and obviously rewritten or they would not have been different. Your harping on a meaningless wording of a previous post which I have since clarified.Clarified by denying that you said what you said. You should retract the statement, not misrepresent what you have in fact said by implying and claiming that you did not in fact say what you most certainly did say.


The following points are clear.

(1) Constantine united Rome as a Christian Rome with a Christian Army under one NT, which is the point, and lets stick with that point.

(2) The uniform Christian NT contained the anti-Jewish references and thinking that were clearly powerful enough to motivate persecution on an organized level across Rome.

(3) Constantine's new Laws regulations and actions had the support of the NT which became more widely accepted in Christian Rome.

(2) Constantine then became the first Emperor to institute pogroms and persecution based on the Christian NT, and set the stage in history for ~1600 years or more of pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians.This is only relevant if to the question of whether the New Testament is in fact antisemitic if Constantine is believed to have correctly understood and implemented the New Testament. You have shown no relevance of Constantine to this question.

shunyadragon
02-21-2015, 07:39 PM
Nonsense. You certainly did speak about the New Testament being rewritten under Constantine. See, for example, your Post# 173:

Speak about is not quoting me. I clarified it.



I understand you now regret having said something that you cannot substantiate when challenged to do so, but the proper response would be for you to retract your claim that cannot be supported and not accuse those who point this out to you as misquoting you.

Absolutely no regrets

You misquoted me specifically saying that I believed under Constantine anti-Jewish references were added. I said no such thing. I have clarified my position.


I was trying to figure out why you thought the supposed rewriting of the New Testament under Constantine was relevant. Note I have used the word 'seemingly' to try and figure out your posts and have also allowed that you might be merely trying to imply some relationship. Otherwise, I do not see any relevance of your bringing up supposed rewriting under Constantine. Perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt that your comment about rewriting under Constantine was supposed to have some relevance to the topic of this thread.

I clarified this, read my last post. Your no responding and avoiding the issue.


This is only relevant if to the question of whether the New Testament is in fact antisemitic if Constantine is believed to have correctly understood and implemented the New Testament. You have shown no relevance of Constantine to this question.

It is relevant and you are playing Duck, Bob and Weave and misquoted me.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 07:45 PM
Speak about is not quoting me. I clarified it. You denied that you said what you did in fact say. That's not clarification.


Absolutely no regrets You should regret it when you cannot substantiate your claim.


You misquoted me specifically saying that I believed under Constantine anti-Jewish references were added. I said no such thing. I have clarified my position.That was not a quote but an attempt to try and figure out why you thought your statements had any relevance. I failed to understand your intent. That is certainly true. Your statements had no relevance. Once again I mistakenly gave you the benefit of the doubt.


I clarified this, read my last post. Your no responding and avoiding the issue. Denying the truth is not clarification. It's obfuscation.


It is relevant and you are playing Duck, Bob and Weave and misquoted me.Then you should be able to explain how it is supposedly relevant to the question of whether or not the New Testament is antisemitic. So far you have not done this. You've only used the word 'Jewish' anachronistically and showed how Constantine was antisemitic.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 07:53 PM
Here is what you said:


... The NT was compiled, edited and rewritten under Constantine's reign and authority. ...

Here is what you later claimed you said:


... All I said was under Constantine all the previous versions were edited, compiled and possibly rewritten in parts ...

That is not clarification. It is obfuscation. Plain and simple. Not honest.

shunyadragon
02-21-2015, 08:03 PM
snip . . . snip nonesense


[quote] This is only relevant if to the question of whether the New Testament is in fact anti-Semitic if Constantine is believed to have correctly understood and implemented the New Testament. You have shown no relevance of Constantine to this question.

After all the layers of bull hocky you have finally came to an important point you alluded to long . . . long ago. Basing your argument on the issue as whether it is believed that 'he correctly understood and implemented the New Testament. This is the weak argument. The ant-Jewish citations are clearly in the NT, and indeed supported by other citations an interpretations in the different books as cited. Pretty much all the Roman Emperors, Kings, Religious leaders for more then 1000 years gave the same interpretation and implemented pogroms, and persecution in the same manner. This also true as one of stated purposes of the Crusades.

It is, of course, you can propose the misinterpretation of scripture in these later days, but that amounts to little more then Monday morning quarterbacking after more then 1600 years of history. Is there interpretation reasonably, whether you believe it is the correct one or not? Indeed it is. Maybe not the correct one, but then again it may be.

robrecht
02-21-2015, 08:44 PM
snip . . . snip non]e[sense




After all the layers of bull hocky you have finally came to an important point you alluded to long . . . long ago. Basing your argument on the issue as whether it is believed that 'he correctly understood and implemented the New Testament. This is the weak argument. The ant-Jewish citations are clearly in the NT, and indeed supported by other citations an interpretations in the different books as cited. Pretty much all the Roman Emperors, Kings, Religious leaders for more then 1000 years gave the same interpretation and implemented pogroms, and persecution in the same manner. This also true as one of stated purposes of the Crusades.

It is, of course, you can propose the misinterpretation of scripture in these later days, but that amounts to little more then Monday morning quarterbacking after more then 1600 years of history. Is there interpretation reasonably, whether you believe it is the correct one or not? Indeed it is. Maybe not the correct one, but then again it may be.I have presented no argument, weak or otherwise, regarding Constantine. You have. You have not shown the relevance of Constantine to the question of whether or not the New Testament is antisemitic. You have avoided the actual meaning of New Testament texts in context and focused instead on Constantine, but you have not even said why you think Constantine is relevant to the question of whether or not New Testament texts are antisemitic, leaving the rest of us to guess what your reasoning is.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 05:43 AM
I have presented no argument, weak or otherwise, regarding Constantine. You have. You have not shown the relevance of Constantine to the question of whether or not the New Testament is antisemitic. You have avoided the actual meaning of New Testament texts in context and focused instead on Constantine, but you have not even said why you think Constantine is relevant to the question of whether or not New Testament texts are antisemitic, leaving the rest of us to guess what your reasoning is.

The fact that you claim not to have presented an argument creates the problem that you have no alternative.

(1) I have provided the citations, that are clearly anti-Jewish and related citations that may be interpreted to supported an anti-Jewish scenario.

(2) Establishing a pattern, beginning, and motivation based on scripture is clearly necessary beginning with Constantine and the beginning of the Roman Church.

(3) I have established the beginning of the pogroms and persecution with Constantine and the establishment of the Roman Church and a Christian Rome. The overwhelming support for this anti-Jewish agenda started by Constantine was widely if not almost universally accepted by the rulers, religious leaders, and people of Europe for over 1000 years with pogroms and persecutions of Jews. One of prime examples is the writings of Martin Luther.

(4) There is abundant evidence that this anti-Jewish belief based on Christian scripture still persists today. It is not as prevalent as in the past, but it indeed persists.

(5) All you have presented is Basing your argument on the issue as whether it is believed that 'he correctly understood and implemented the New Testament.' This is the weak argument. You did cite that there were other conflicts among Christians, and among Jews in the early years, but this does not address the extreme anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms that began with Constantine and continued for ~1600 years after the establishment of the Roman Church and a Christian Rome. You then claim that you have not presented an argument. Again, his is clearly avoiding the issue and the subject of the thread. What you have failed to provide is that the anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that dominated Christian European history has another cause other then the basis in Christian scripture.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 05:52 AM
The fact that you claim not to have presented an argument creates the problem that you have no alternative. Not an argument about Constantine. I have tried to get you to address the the New Testament texts themselves without being anachronistic.


(1) I have provided the citations, that are clearly anti-Jewish and related citations that may be interpreted to supported an anti-Jewish scenario. But you have declined to engage as to the correct interpretation. Only claimed that it cannot be known.


(2) Establishing a pattern, beginning, and motivation based on scripture is clearly necessary beginning with Constantine and the beginning of the Roman Church.

(3) I have established the beginning of the pogroms and persecution with Constantine and the establishment of the Roman Church and a Christian Rome. The overwhelming support for this anti-Jewish agenda started by Constantine was widely if not almost universally accepted by the rulers, religious leaders, and people of Europe for over 1000 years with pogroms and persecutions of Jews. One of prime examples is the writings of Martin Luther.

(4) There is abundant evidence that this anti-Jewish belief based on Christian scripture still persists today. It is not as prevalent as in the past, but it indeed persists.All irrelevant to understanding the New Testament texts in their original historical contexts.


(5) All you have presented is Basing your argument on the issue as whether it is believed that 'he correctly understood and implemented the New Testament.' This is the weak argument. You did cite that there were other conflicts among Christians, and among Jews in the early years, but this does not address the extreme anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms that began with Constantine and continued for ~1600 years after the establishment of the Roman Church and a Christian Rome. You then claim that you have not presented an argument. Again, his is clearly avoiding the issue and the subject of the thread. What you have failed to provide is that the anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that dominated Christian European history has another cause other then the basis in Christian scripture.I have not addressed anti-Jewish persecution subsequent to the time of Constantine because it is not relevant to understanding the New Testament texts in their original historical contexts nearly three centuries earlier.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 07:00 AM
Not an argument about Constantine. I have tried to get you to address the the New Testament texts themselves without being anachronistic.

You have failed to present an alternative.


But you have declined to engage as to the correct interpretation. Only claimed that it cannot be known.

I never claimed that a correct interpretation cannot be known. The evidence supports that this interpretation is reasonably based on direst and indirect references to NT scripture that clearly inspire anti-Jewish persecution. I do not believe an argument for the correct alternative interpretation at that time, which you have failed to provide, is a viable argument.


All irrelevant to understanding the New Testament texts in their original historical contexts.

You have failed to present anything meaningful in terms of 'original historical contexts' that would explain an alternate cause for the anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms. In the 'original historical context' I do not see anyone at the time presenting an alternate interpretation of the scriptures.

I have not addressed anti-Jewish persecution subsequent to the time of Constantine because it is not relevant to understanding the New Testament texts in their original historical contexts nearly three centuries earlier.[/QUOTE]

robrecht
02-22-2015, 07:39 AM
You have failed to present an alternative. Untrue. I have presented the consensus view of New Testament scholars that what you are anachronistically referring to as anti-Jewish was rather inter-Jewish polemic in the context of multiple Judaisms which continued even with the admission of Gentiles into the early Christian communities.


I never claimed that a correct interpretation cannot be known. When I criticized your view as relying upon later interpretations of much earlier texts and their sources, and suggested that you needed a better historico-critical hermeneutic of the New Testament texts themselves, you did indeed say:


The earlier texts before ~200 - ~400 AD are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns. The argument as I described before, begins with Constantine concerning NT referenced above, and that is what the is considered sacred text through the anti-Jewish Christian history in question.

I did not 'ask about' this earlier period where the known texts are insufficient for any argument either way.


The evidence supports that this interpretation is reasonably based on direst and indirect references to NT scripture that clearly inspire anti-Jewish persecution. I do not believe an argument for the correct alternative interpretation at that time, which you have failed to provide, is a viable argument.

You have failed to present anything meaningful in terms of 'original historical contexts' that would explain an alternate cause for the anti-Jewish persecution and pogroms. In the 'original historical context' I do not see anyone at the time presenting an alternate interpretation of the scriptures. Once again, I have not attempted to present any alternative explanation of what inspired later actions of Constantine and later secular and religious Christians because I have tried to get you to focus on the New Testament texts themselves and to not to use terms like 'Jewish' and 'Judaism' in an anachronistic manner. Instead you say 'these texts are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns, and insufficient for any argument either way' and 'begin your argument with Constantine'. It is pointless to discuss your position with you if you cannot be consistent or honest about the things you have said, even claiming that your false denials are clarification rather than obfuscation.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 09:03 AM
Untrue. I have presented the consensus view of New Testament scholars that what you are anachronistically referring to as anti-Jewish was rather inter-Jewish polemic in the context of multiple Judaisms which continued even with the admission of Gentiles into the early Christian communities.

This offers nothing for your case. The admission of Gentiles into the early Christian communities is not even relevant to the thread. Your engaging in trivial pursuit bringing up Inter-Jewish polemic and context of multiple Judaisms when the issue is Christian-Jewish relationship from Constantine on when Rome became Christian and the Roman Church began. Christians did not distinguish between multiple Judaisms nor Inter-Jewish polemic in their pogroms and persecution.

Yes, the subject is The New Testament is Anti-jewish (Semitic), but the New Testament has to exist as a document, and be a well known uniform document in something closely resembling what we know exists today. That did not happen until Constantine ordered the compilation of a standard form and distributed it to his empire and made it the standard for religion.

There is no evidence that such a document existed as we know it today prior to 200 BCE.

When I criticized your view as relying upon later interpretations of much earlier texts and their sources, and suggested that you needed a better historico-critical hermeneutic of the New Testament texts themselves, you did indeed say:



Once again, I have not attempted to present any alternative explanation of what inspired later actions of Constantine and later secular and religious Christians because I have tried to get you to focus on the New Testament texts themselves and to not to use terms like 'Jewish' and 'Judaism' in an anachronistic manner. Instead you say 'these texts are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns, and insufficient for any argument either way' and 'begin your argument with Constantine'. It is pointless to discuss your position with you if you cannot be consistent or honest about the things you have said, even claiming that your false denials are clarification rather than obfuscation.[/QUOTE]

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 09:10 AM
This offers nothing for your case. The admission of Gentiles into the early Christian communities is not even relevant to the thread. Your engaging in trivial pursuit bringing up Inter-Jewish polemic and context of multiple Judaisms when the issue is Christian-Jewish relationship from Constantine on when Rome became Christian and the Roman Church began. Christians did not distinguish between multiple Judaisms nor Inter-Jewish polemic in their pogroms and persecution.

Yes, the subject is The New Testament is Anti-jewish (Semitic), but the New Testament has to exist as a document, and be a well known uniform document in something closely resembling what we know exists today. That did not happen until Constantine ordered the compilation of a standard form and distributed it to his empire and made it the standard for religion.

There is no evidence that such a document existed as we know it today prior to 200 BCE. What we had was many individual communities with a variable collection of books and letters they believed as scripture. Most of which is unknown accept as third hand references as to the content and nature of these references. What we have today is only scrapes and indirect references to scripture.

[quote] When I criticized your view as relying upon later interpretations of much earlier texts and their sources, and suggested that you needed a better historico-critical hermeneutic of the New Testament texts themselves, you did indeed say:

I did not say it is impossible, but I did say that there is no evidence that the NT existed and in general circulation prior to 200 BCE, which is true.




Once again, I have not attempted to present any alternative explanation of what inspired later actions of Constantine and later secular and religious Christians . . .

That is the problem because this is the period when the New Testament became the Franca standard of the land, which is the issue of the thread. Prior to this the Christians were not in control to implement a program of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution.



because I have tried to get you to focus on the New Testament texts themselves and to not to use terms like 'Jewish' and 'Judaism' in an anachronistic manner. Instead you say 'these texts are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns, and insufficient for any argument either way' and 'begin your argument with Constantine'. It is pointless to discuss your position with you if you cannot be consistent or honest about the things you have said, even claiming that your false denials are clarification rather than obfuscation.

Trying without a coherent meaningful argument concerning the issue at hand.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 09:12 AM
This offers nothing for your case. The admission of Gentiles into the early Christian communities is not even relevant to the thread. Of course it is. You cannot begin to have anything like anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism views and behaviors until you are speaking of a non-Jewish group.


Your engaging in trivial pursuit bringing up Inter-Jewish polemic and context of multiple Judaisms when the issue is Christian-Jewish relationship from Constantine on when Rome became Christian and the Roman Church began. The issue is not at all Christian-Jewish relations from Constantine on. The issue of this thread is about the New Testament texts, whether or not they are antisemitic, and they were written long before the time of Constantine.


Christians did not distinguish between multiple Judaisms nor Inter-Jewish polemic in their pogroms and persecution. Thank you for making my point for me.


Yes, the subject is The New Testament is Anti-jewish (Semitic), but the New Testament has to exist as a document, and be a well known uniform document in something closely resembling what we know exists today. That did not happen until Constantine ordered the compilation of a standard form and distributed it to his empire and made it the standard for religion.

There is no evidence that such a document existed as we know it today prior to 200 BCE. By focusing on the standardization of the canon, you are continuing to ignore the proper interpretation of the New Testament texts in the historical and sociological contexts in which they were written.

I see you are unable to respond to my pointing out yet another example of your false denial of your own previous position.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 09:16 AM
I did not say it is impossible, but I did say that there is no evidence that the NT existed and in general circulation prior to 200 BCE, which is true. Again, you say 'these texts are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns, and insufficient for any argument either way' and you 'begin your argument with Constantine'. You will never understand the meaning of the New Testament texts in their original historical and sociological contexts if you can only begin with Constantine.



That is the problem because this is the period when the New Testament became the Franca standard of the land, which is the issue of the thread. Prior to this the Christians were not in control to implement a program of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution.What in the world is a 'Franca standard'?

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 09:21 AM
Of course it is. You cannot begin to have anything like anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism views and behaviors until you are speaking of a non-Jewish group.

At the time of Constantine and beyond the Identity of Christianity was firmly established as a non-Jewish group that persecuted Jews based on the New Testament text


The issue is not at all Christian-Jewish relations from Constantine on. The issue of this thread is about the New Testament texts, whether or not they are antisemitic, and they were written long before the time of Constantine.

The anti-Jewish citations in the New Testament is already established with clear and concise citations. You have not objected to my references to anti-Jewish references..


Thank you for making my point for me.

The point is for me. The issue of different Jewish groups was never an issue in the pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians.


By focusing on the standardization of the canon, you are continuing to ignore the proper interpretation of the New Testament texts in the historical and sociological contexts in which they were written.

The thread is about the NT. It must be standardized and known before it can be understood as the issue of the thread, before 200BCE it is not known to exist in the form we call the NT today.


I see you are unable to respond to my pointing out yet another example of your false denial of your own previous position.

Responded in detail

robrecht
02-22-2015, 09:26 AM
At the time of Constantine and beyond the Identity of Christianity was firmly established as a non-Jewish group the persecuted Jews based on the New Testament text Which is part of the reason why it has little relevance to the intended meaning of the original authors of the New Testament texts, which is the subject of this thread. Read the link in the opening post of the thread.


The anti-Jewish citations in the New Testament is already established with clear and concise citations.. Certainly not. You completely ignore the historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written.


The point is for me. The issue of different Jewish groups was never an issue in the pogroms and persecution of Jews by Christians. You are not even discussing the whole point of this thread, which is the intended meaning of the original authors of the New Testament texts. Read the link in the opening post of the thread.

Please learn how to use HTML codes correctly.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 09:27 AM
Again, you say 'these texts are too problematic, sketchy with many unknowns, and insufficient for any argument either way' and you 'begin your argument with Constantine'. You will never understand the meaning of the New Testament texts in their original historical and sociological contexts if you can only begin with Constantine.

The problem is you cannot and have failed to present anything relevant to the thread, before the existence of the New Testament which is the issue of the thread.


What in the world is a 'Franca standard'?

The NT compiled under Constantine was set as the standard scripture of the Roman Church and the Roman Empire

robrecht
02-22-2015, 09:31 AM
The problem is you cannot and have failed to present anything relevant to the thread, before the existence of the New Testament which is the issue of the thread.Read the link in the original post and you may begin to understand the actual issue of this thread.


The NT compiled under Constantine was set as the standard scripture of the Roman Church and the Roman EmpireBut what in the world is a "Franca standard"?

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 09:34 AM
Which is part of the reason why it has little relevance to the intended meaning of the original authors of the New Testament texts, which is the subject of this thread. Read the link in the opening post of the thread.

Certainly not. You completely ignore the historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written.

You are not even discussing the whole point of this thread, which is the intended meaning of the original authors of the New Testament texts. Read the link in the opening post of the thread.

Please learn how to use HTML codes correctly.

I was in the process of correcting when you responded. I had accidently prematurely sent the post. Nonetheless you are avoiding the main issue of the thread, the New Testament as we know of it today. There are many hypothetical arguments concerning the origins of the NT texts, and the correct interpretations, but that in reality avoids the central reality of the specific anti-Jewish references and interpretations of the NT texts, and why and how they were applied from Constantine on including most of the history of the Roman Church, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Monday morning quarterbacking as to what is the correct interpretation is meaningless when considering the actual FACTS of case.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 09:39 AM
I was in the process of correcting when you responded. I had accidently prematurely sent the post. Nonetheless you are avoiding the main issue of the thread, the New Testament as we know of it today. There are many hypothetical arguments concerning the origins of the NT texts, and the correct interpretations, but that in reality avoids the central reality of the specific anti-Jewish references and interpretations of the NT texts, and why and how they were applied from Constantine on including most of the history of the Roman Church, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Monday morning quarterbacking as to what is the correct interpretation is meaningless when considering the actual FACTS of case.Read the link in the original post. The discussion is about the intended meaning of the original authors of New Testament texts in their original contexts, not about why and how they were applied from Constantine on.

Adrift
02-22-2015, 10:05 AM
I was in the process of correcting when you responded. I had accidently prematurely sent the post. Nonetheless you are avoiding the main issue of the thread, the New Testament as we know of it today. There are many hypothetical arguments concerning the origins of the NT texts, and the correct interpretations, but that in reality avoids the central reality of the specific anti-Jewish references and interpretations of the NT texts, and why and how they were applied from Constantine on including most of the history of the Roman Church, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Monday morning quarterbacking as to what is the correct interpretation is meaningless when considering the actual FACTS of case.

What would it take for you to realize that you are the one avoiding the main issue of the thread, and not those that you're responding to? If the thread creator told you that you that Constantine is not the topic of the thread, would that satisfy you?

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:05 AM
Initially, eight days after the thread began, he understood the issue of the thread, but also tried to expand the discussion to that of antisemitism in the history of Christianity. Here he actually referred to Paul's intended meaning in the original context of his letter to the Romans.


The New Testament should not necessarily be called anti-semitic, but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present.

The article begins with this quote.

In Rom 1.16, Paul tells the Christians at Rome that he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”

First problem is I do not consider this quote representative of the relationship between Christians and Jews in the NT since it only refers to Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ.

A few days later, he was only interested in discussing the New Testament as a source for the views of later Christians:


You actually missed the point and the context of my first statements, and chose to cherry pick quotes and accuss [accuse] others of cherry picking. I said that the NT is not necessarily antisemitic, and you cannot dodge the fact that antisemitism is an inherent problem in the history of Christianity since Constantine, and the source is [of] their view is the NT. I can parade the evidence all the way up until recently and over the centuries of the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews, and obvious antisemitic views within Christianity even citations by Billy Graham. You may continue to accuse them of cherry picking, but you're accusing all the history of Christianity of cherry picking and it goes nowhere..

The problems in the OT, Hinduism (Hinduism never actively slaughtered, and ethnic cleansed Jews) and Hitler bent cross, are not the issue. The problem is an intense history of antisemitism in Christianity up until recently based on the NT.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 10:10 AM
What would it take for you to realize that you are the one avoiding the main issue of the thread, and not those that you're responding to? If the thread creator told you that you that Constantine is not the topic of the thread, would that satisfy you?

I have addressed the main issues of the thread. The main issues appear an embarrassment is some, therefore side shows and dog and pony shows dominate the counter arguments.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:15 AM
I have addressed the main issues of the thread. The main issues appear an embarrassment is some, therefore side shows and dog and pony shows dominate the counter arguments.Your posts have been amusing but no one went so far as to call you a dog or pony.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 10:16 AM
Initially, eight days after the thread began, he understood the issue of the thread, but also tried to expand the discussion to that of antisemitism in the history of Christianity. Here he actually referred to Paul's intended meaning in the original context of his letter to the Romans.

This text clearly refers to those Jews and Christians who converted to Christianity. This most definitely needs to be put in context of the whole and not used as a selective reference. This also true of selectively quoting Paul's letters.

[quote]

A few days later, he was only interested in discussing the New Testament as a source for the views of later Christians:

Yes, the NT as a whole is the issue, and ALL the citations that collectively develop the anti-Jewish view of Christian Rome and later Europe

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:19 AM
Yes, the NT as a whole is the issue, and ALL the citations that collectively develop the anti-Jewish view of Christian Rome and later EuropeThen why would you start out by speaking of Paul's intended meaning in his letter to the Romans when speaking about antisemitism in the New Testament? By the way, when discussing Paul's attitude toward 'the Jews', you should read the whole letter.

Please learn how to use HTML codes correctly.

Adrift
02-22-2015, 10:20 AM
I have addressed the main issues of the thread. The main issues appear an embarrassment is some, therefore side shows and dog and pony shows dominate the counter arguments.

If the thread creator told you that the New Testament is the focus of the thread, and not Constantine or the later Roman church, would you listen to him, and stop telling others that THEY are off topic? Its a yes or no question.

Scrawly, are you still reading this thread? Would you mind addressing this subject?

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 10:25 AM
Your posts have been amusing but no one went so far as to call you a dog or pony.

I am sure by nature of your posts that is your view, but it remains a fact that you are avoiding the central issue of the thread, the NT in the history of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe by the Emperors, Kings and leaders, and Heads of the churches including the Roman Church. Clouding the issue with side shows not directly related to the topic.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:27 AM
I am sure by nature of your posts that is your view, but it remains a fact that you are avoiding the central issue of the thread, the NT in the history of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe by the Emperors, Kings and leaders, and Heads of the churches including the Roman Church. Clouding the issue with side shows not directly related to the topic.Does the link in the initial post mention anything at all about the history of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe by emperors, kings, leaders, and heads of the churches, including the Roman Catholic Church or does it address the intended meaning of the authors of New Testament texts in their original historical contexts?

For the record, I do not think you are a dog or pony.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 10:29 AM
If the thread creator told you that the New Testament is the focus of the thread, and not Constantine or the later Roman church, would you listen to him, and stop telling others that THEY are off topic? Its a yes or no question.

Under the rule of Constantine is when the NT was standardized and became the standard of the Roman Church and the Christian Roman Empire and when the pogroms and persecution of Jews began on a scale that continued for ~1600 years. These facts cannot be avoided by side shows.


Scrawly, are you still reading this thread? Would you mind addressing this subject?

Appealing for censorship does not change the facts.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 10:33 AM
Does the link in the initial post mention anything at all about the history of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe by emperors, kings, leaders, and heads of the churches, including the Roman Catholic Church or does it address the intended meaning of the authors of New Testament texts in their original historical contexts?

It begins the record by citing the scripture and text of the NT. Read Foote and Wheeler in Crimes of Christianity, particularly Chapter VIII to go on with related history and cause. Other parts of the book go into the historical references of the subject.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:35 AM
Under the rule of Constantine is when the NT was standardized and became the standard of the Roman Church and the Christian Roman Empire and when the pogroms and persecution of Jews began on a scale that continued for ~1600 years. These facts cannot be avoided by side shows.

Appealing for censorship does not change the facts.You have criticized others for avoiding the issue of this thread. It is not censorship for the thread creator to clarify for you the issue he intended to be discussed in this thread. Or you could merely read his link and you will see that it is discussing the intended meaning by the authors of the original texts of the New Testament in their original historical context and not how these texts were applied by Constantine and later European leaders.

37818
02-22-2015, 10:35 AM
I am sure by nature of your posts that is your view, but it remains a fact that you are avoiding the central issue of the thread, the NT in the history of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe by the Emperors, Kings and leaders, and Heads of the churches including the Roman Church. Clouding the issue with side shows not directly related to the topic.
:offtopic:
Most of the NT was written before 70 CE. The book called the Revelation/Apocalypse is commonly given a later date.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 10:37 AM
It begins the record by citing the scripture and text of the NT. Read Foote and Wheeler in Crimes of Christianity, particularly Chapter VIII to go on with related history and cause. Other parts of the book go into the historical references of the subject.Start your own thread about Foote and Wheeler. This one was started to discuss a link to a little article by Dan Wallace about the originally intended meaning of some New Testament texts.

Scrawly
02-22-2015, 07:39 PM
Yes Shuny Rob is correct as to the point of this thread. Have you read the article?

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 07:45 PM
:offtopic:
Most of the NT was written before 70 CE. The book called the Revelation/Apocalypse is commonly given a later date.

No known evidence to support this.

shunyadragon
02-22-2015, 07:57 PM
Yes Shuny Rob is correct as to the point of this thread. Have you read the article?

Yes, my pointe is clear the persecution and pogroms bran with Constantine making a uniform version of the New Testament standard in Christian Rome and the Roman Church. The NT is cited repeatedly in history to support the persecution and pogroms against the Jews. The previously cited references in the NT have not been disputed.

robrecht
02-22-2015, 08:31 PM
Yes, my pointe is clear the persecution and pogroms bran with Constantine making a uniform version of the New Testament standard in Christian Rome and the Roman Church. The NT is cited repeatedly in history to support the persecution and pogroms against the Jews. The previously cited references in the NT have not been disputed.
Bran??? Pointe???

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 05:35 AM
Start your own thread about Foote and Wheeler. This one was started to discuss a link to a little article by Dan Wallace about the originally intended meaning of some New Testament texts.

Necessarily relevant to this thread. Case stated in detail, No need for another thread.

robrecht
02-23-2015, 06:30 AM
I do not believe that the article nor the posts that follow successfully address the issues. The New Testament should not necessarily be called anti-semitic, but there is indeed a problem of antisemitism in the New Testament and the history of Christianity up to the present.

The article begins with this quote.

In Rom 1.16, Paul tells the Christians at Rome that he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”

First problem is I do not consider this quote representative of the relationship between Christians and Jews in the NT since it only refers to Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ.

The controversy did not begin with Mel Gibson's Movie.If you read this verse in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, you will see that he clearly believes that all Israel will be saved, including those who do not presently believe in Christ and those who came before. When he speaks of 'the Jew first' here he is referring to God's irrevocable election of Israel from the time of the patriarchs. When you attempt to speak about the relationship between Christians and Jews in the New Testament, you are ignoring that almost all authors, if not all, of the New Testament texts were themselves 'Jews' or proselytes to Judaism who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, as do you. The Bahá’u’lláh and you also believe that 'the Jews were accursed' because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. We disagree on this point. I do not believe that the Jews are accursed.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 06:44 AM
Start your own thread about Foote and Wheeler. This one was started to discuss a link to a little article by Dan Wallace about the originally intended meaning of some New Testament texts.

Its sacking the deck if you are restricting the debate to one article and a 'some' New Testament texts, thus avoiding the consequences of ALL the relevant citations of the New Testament, actual history, and the consequences of the New Testament as the cause of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution.

You could of course, keep everything since, neat and comfortable in your own limited reality to justify what you want to believe, but this is not the WHOLE reality of history.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 06:50 AM
If you read this verse in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, you will see that he clearly believes that all Israel will be saved, including those who do not presently believe in Christ and those who came before. When he speaks of 'the Jew first' here he is referring to God's irrevocable election of Israel from the time of the patriarchs. When you attempt to speak about the relationship between Christians and Jews in the New Testament, you are ignoring that almost all authors, if not all, of the New Testament texts were themselves 'Jews' or proselytes to Judaism who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, as do you. The Bahá’u’lláh and you also believe that 'the Jews were accursed' because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. We disagree on this point. I do not believe that the Jews are accursed.

Taking Baha'i citations out of context does not help your case, and as usual diverting the debate with off topic stuff. This was addressed in another thread and as usual you ignored the explanation of the whole context in the Baha'i writings. You are doing the same here by attempting to limit the discussion to only articles, texts, discussion that make your own view comfortable. The Baha'i writings did not curse the Jews, and make direct statements attacking Jews as the New Testament did.

robrecht
02-23-2015, 06:50 AM
Its sacking the deck if you are restricting the debate to one article and a 'some' New Testament texts, thus avoiding the consequences of ALL the relevant citations of the New Testament, actual history, and the consequences of the New Testament as the cause of anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution.

You could of course, keep everything since, neat and comfortable in your own limited reality to justify what you want to believe, but this is not the WHOLE reality of history.I am not restricting debate, but we have no disagreement about antisemitism in the history of the church. There is no debate about that. You were the one who said that I and others were avoiding the issue of this thread when in fact you have been doing so yourself, refusing to discuss the meaning of the New Testament texts in their proper historical contexts.

robrecht
02-23-2015, 06:52 AM
Taking Baha'i citations out of context does not help your case, and as usual diverting the debate with off topic stuff. This was addressed in another thread and as usual you ignored the explanation of the whole context in the Baha'i writings. You are doing the same here by attempting to limit the discussion to only articles, texts, discussion that make your own view comfortable. The Baha'i writings did not curse the Jews, and make direct statements attacking Jews as the New Testament did.It was this very thread and you never answered my question. Do you (and the Bahá’u’lláh) believe that 'the Jews are accursed or not?

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 06:53 AM
I am not restricting debate, but we have no disagreement about antisemitism in the history of the church. There is no debate about that. You were the one who said that I and others were avoiding the issue of this thread when in fact you have been doing so yourself, refusing to discuss the meaning of the New Testament texts in their proper historical contexts.

I have presented the New Testament in the overall historical context. It is you who are dodging the facts of origins of Christian anti-Jewish persecution and direct history and references in the text.

Your references to historical context have been vague and nebulous, limited to a few citations and one article, and without sufficient explanation. As you said, you have not presented and argument . . .

robrecht
02-23-2015, 07:09 AM
I have presented the New Testament in the overall historical context. It is you who are dodging the facts of origins of Christian anti-Jewish persecution and direct history and references in the text.

Your references to historical context have been vague and nebulous, limited to a few citations and one article, and without sufficient explanation. As you said, you have not presented and argument . . .
You refuse to engage about the historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written, which is the the proper context for understanding these texts and the whole point of this thread. Pick any text you like, and I will discuss it with you. Unlike you, I will not avoid your questions.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 08:10 AM
You refuse to engage about the historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written, which is the the proper context for understanding these texts and the whole point of this thread. Pick any text you like, and I will discuss it with you. Unlike you, I will not avoid your questions.

You have so far offered nothing with which I can engage, just air balls and vague accusation of what I have supposedly not done. As you said, 'I have not presented an argument.'

robrecht
02-23-2015, 08:13 AM
You have so far offered nothing with which I can engage, just air balls and vague accusation of what I have supposedly not done. As you said, 'I have not presented an argument.'Not true. I have twice tried to engage you on the context of Paul's letter to the Romans. And I have already corrected you on this misrepresentation. I have not presented an argument regarding Constantine and later persecution of Jews because I am trying to get you to engage about the original historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written. You will not address this globally or with respect to specific texts.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 08:52 AM
Not true. I have twice tried to engage you on the context of Paul's letter to the Romans. And I have already corrected you on this misrepresentation. I have not presented an argument regarding Constantine and later persecution of Jews because I am trying to get you to engage about the original historical contexts in which the New Testament texts were written. You will not address this globally or with respect to specific texts.

You have presented nothing here that I can respond to.

We disagree on the Romans citations by Paul - Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." I believe his references are clear that he is those who believe in Christ, later referred to as Christians. We disagree, but yes here is a basis for my position

robrecht
02-23-2015, 09:06 AM
You have presented nothing here that I can respond to.

We disagree on the Romans citations by Paul - Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." I believe his references are clear that he is those who believe in Christ, later referred to as Christians. We disagree, but yes here is a basis for my positionUntrue, again. You completely ignored this part of my post:


If you read this verse in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, you will see that he clearly believes that all Israel will be saved, including those who do not presently believe in Christ and those who came before. When he speaks of 'the Jew first' here he is referring to God's irrevocable election of Israel from the time of the patriarchs. When you attempt to speak about the relationship between Christians and Jews in the New Testament, you are ignoring that almost all authors, if not all, of the New Testament texts were themselves 'Jews' or proselytes to Judaism who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, as do you. The Bahá’u’lláh and you also believe that 'the Jews were accursed' because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. We disagree on this point. I do not believe that the Jews are accursed.

As for all those who have faith, for Paul that includes Abraham, as one can see in the immediately following verse: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 09:36 AM
Untrue, again. You completely ignored this part of my post:

Did not, I made myself clear. You have not provided anything I can respond to.


As for all those who have faith, for Paul that includes Abraham, as one can see in the immediately following verse: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

We disagree. when he refers to Greeks, he refers to the converted, I believe likewise the same for the Jews, and they converted first before the Greeks. This point we disagree. Actually this not main citations that determine whether the NT supports anti-Jewish persecution.

I believe the following confirms it refers to the converted: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29: And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

robrecht
02-23-2015, 09:56 AM
Did not, I made myself clear. You have not provided anything I can respond to.

We disagree. when he refers to Greeks, he refers to the converted, I believe likewise the same for the Jews, and they converted first before the Greeks. This point we disagree. Actually this not main citations that determine whether the NT supports anti-Jewish persecution.

"I believe the following confirms it refers to the converted: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29: And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." I do not disagree with the above, but if you were more familiar with the writings of Paul, you would know that this includes Abraham, as is intimated here in verse 29 and as is made explicit in Paul's letter to the Galatians:


Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

You have once again ignored the the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, where it is clear that he believes that all Israel will be saved, including those who do not presently believe in Christ and those who came before. He speaks of God's irrevocable election of Israel from the time of the patriarchs. And, when you attempt to speak about the relationship between Christians and Jews in the New Testament, you are ignoring that almost all authors, if not all, of the New Testament texts were themselves 'Jews' or proselytes to Judaism who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 10:39 AM
It was this very thread and you never answered my question. Do you (and the Bahá’u’lláh) believe that 'the Jews are accursed or not?

Question answered in the previous thread. OFF TOPIC

robrecht
02-23-2015, 10:45 AM
Question answered in the previous thread. OFF TOPICNo, again, it was this thread, not another thread. You did not really answer the question, but merely tried to change the text of your scriptures to say that the Jews cursed themselves, when clearly they have not done so.

shunyadragon
02-23-2015, 10:55 AM
no, again, it was this thread, not another thread. You did not really answer the question, but merely tried to change the text of your scriptures to say that the jews cursed themselves, when clearly they have not done so.

off topic.

robrecht
02-23-2015, 11:18 AM
off topic.I think it is a worthwhile to compare the question of anti-Jewish attitudes in the New Testament texts with a similar attitude in the scriptures of your religion. Authors of both scriptures were critical of 'the Jews' for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah or Face of God. There are also contrasts that are illuminating. On the one hand, the New Testament authors, who were primarily Jews themselves, were criticizing the authority figures from their own religion who were continuing to persecute the followers of Jesus, whereas the Bahá’u’lláh was criticizing Jews who were not persecuting him and who were members of a separate religion. Do you see how this comparison and contrast helps illuminate some of the dynamics involved?

Omniskeptical
02-25-2015, 07:41 PM
The term Israelite is a modern term for the Jewish citizens of Israel.NO, THE TERM IS ISRAELI.



Jews became Israelites with the founding of the state of Israel.They became Israelis. Jew in OT and NT English means one of the tribe of Yudah or Judah.


Simply the Jews of Europe and the rest of the world are the descendants of the Jews of the tribes of Palestine region, and of course the Jews of New and Old Testaments.They aren't, but they think they are when they don't know what really happened to the other 11 tribes. New Testament says, they returned from exile. The Jewish version of their "own" history is confusing, wrong and artificial.

Omniskeptical
02-25-2015, 07:44 PM
Your splitting from hairs over terminology. Jews is a satisfactory term for Jews throughout history what ever you want to call them. Your dancing dodging and weaving in meaningless details avoiding the main issue of the thread.No it is not satisfactory.

DesertBerean
02-26-2015, 07:25 AM
Shuny, please respect the original OP of this thread or go start one for your perspective on the matter.

37818
02-26-2015, 07:36 AM
No known evidence to support this.

You do not know it. And that discussion is also for another thread.

shunyadragon
03-01-2015, 09:19 AM
You do not know it. And that discussion is also for another thread.

No known evidence for this. if you want to argue for this, of course, another thread would be necessary.