(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Why do I even bother to look in christianity anymore? Half of what I see there literally makes me sick.

Edit. What disturbs me this morning in particular are (a) ignorant comments about homosexuality which never fails to upset me, and (b) willful ignorance regarding anti-Semitism.

For example, it's being discussed that Gibson has taken a scene out of his movie that shows a Jew lamenting that Jesus' blood will be on their heads forever. Comments such as, "But that's in the Bible, so it's historically true and COULDN'T POSSIBLY be anti-Semitic" are what has riled me.

Comments

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

What makes you sick about what's in christianity?

Re:

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I updated this entry with some detail on what it is that has me upset.

Re:

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

a) there's little you can do about that but move on with your life.

b) I think that it's well-established that there's no anti-Semitic content in the New Testament, just ignorant interpretation of the New Testament.

Re:

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I think that it's well-established that there's no anti-Semitic content in the New Testament, just ignorant interpretation of the New Testament.

I would call that often-asserted, but in my mind far from well established.

John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

The Passion narrative in the Gospel of John is RAW anti-Semitism--especially when you consider all of the archaelogical, linguistic and historical evidence that most of it is PURE FABRICATION--meant to exculpate Pilate and the Roman administrators and damn the "Jews." (And, yes, I know of the evidence that its provenance may be closer to the time of Jesus than the other Evangels; that doesn't prevent it from being largely a political ploy. The other Gospels make MORE SENSE, and are truer to the norms of Roman governance of conquered peoples.)

Re: John's fictions

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Baseless claims.

Re: John's fictions

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

He just wrote that there is "archaelogical, linguistic and historical evidence" to back them up. That makes them far from BASELESS.

Re: John's fictions

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Let's see the archaeological, linguistic and historical evicdence, then.

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

How can YOU, of all people say this, Scott, when the Gospel of John is the most Hellenic--the least Judaic--in philosophic tone? When it provides the clearest evidence of what you seem to be talking about, always--a betrayal, by the early Church, of the Hebraic elements of Christianity? It's the Gospel that BEGINS the "paganizing" of Christ--the turning of Him into a "dying god"--rather than the legitimate consummation of the teachings and prophecies of the Jews? Just how much critical exegitical scholarship have you engaged in?

Re: John's fictions

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Is the 'paganizing' of Christianity anti-Semitic?

Re: John's fictions

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The paganizing of Christianity took place in a context of growing animosity between Christians and Jews. It is not inherently anti-Semitic, but there is a correlation.

Re: John's fictions

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

We're back to my distinction between accidental and constitutive characteristics, I think.

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

In the "etiology" of Scriptural anti-Semitism, it is the very SOURCE, intellectually.

Re: John's fictions

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

But is 'paganized' Christianity, itself, anti-Semitic?

Or has it 'merely' been used by anti-Semites?

Re: John's fictions

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Enough to know that anyone who claims that the gospel of John isn't Jewish is full of shit.

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but it's full of GREEK ideas about the nature of God. Some have even argued that PLATO is the greatest influence on it.

Re: John's fictions

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Many have also argued that it is simultaneously the most hellenistic *and* the most Jewish of the Gospels. Miller et al (The Complete Gospels) argue that it shows that greatest level of intimacy with first century Judaic theology of any of the canonical Gospels. However, at the same time, it shows the highest level of the use of Hellenistic equivalencies to relate Christ - the whole ode to the logos in John 1:1. Interestingly enough, it bears many marks of measures taken to stem the tide of hellenization of Christianity already occuring in the late 1st c. (Pagels goes into this quite a bit).

What it comes down to is that it is the most theological of the 4 canoncial Gospels and that it draws heavily on both Judaic theology and Hellenistic philosophy/theology.

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

You know, I have too much respect for your admirable--and at times, fiery--interest in this subject which is so important to you, to try to be tendentious or "brainwashing" in any kind of reply to you, Scott. So I'm just going to give you two citations, to show you how much DEEPER into this subject you could go, if YOU'D GET THE RIGHT, BALANCED KIND OF EDUCATION. But here's the kind of course you should be taking, in some non-Fundamentalist theology school:

http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/johnesr.htm

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

And here is something that seems to be arguing precisely what you believe:

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1214

How can we KNOW these things, though? Ultimately, it IS a question of "faith," and my "faith" (largely formed by my liberal Catholic education, I'll admit) is that these people who reduce Jesus's teachings to a series of intellectual tricks, involving a great deal of rationality, and little existential CHOICE and ACTION are failing to be anything but hypocritical and tepid in their religion. What I admire most about Judaism--and you--is the passion for following God's "ways."

Re: John's fictions

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

If I were to go deeper, I'd actually rather take the time to study the Aramaic versions of the gospels that the 4th century church father Epiphanius mentioned in this (http://www.nazarene.net/nazareneh.htm?) quotation. New Testament scholarship in this day and age should absolutely be understood from a Hebraic perspective, not a Hellenistic Greek perspective.

Incidentally, I've before said that I see the remnant of which Epiphanius speaks in that quote as being the very same remnant mentioned in Revelation 12:17.

I know you want to hit that

[belisariuss.livejournal.com]

is it possible

this thred is confusing anti-judaism
with anti-semitism?

just curious

from everything I have read
anti-semitism found it's first usage
in 16th century spain
after the reconquista

to call parts of the new testament anti-semitic
seems like an extreme anachronism

this doesn't mean
that individuals can't use parts of the new testament
to justify
their feelings of antisemitism

it just means
that I find it hard to believe
someone could argue that the new testament
had antisemitic sections to it


Constantine

Re: I know you want to hit that

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

I can understand what you mean, if you're implying that anti-Semitism of the modern pagan, the Nazi variety, is what we're to use to measure the phenomenon, but what would you call the virulent anti-Jewish sentiment of the modern Arab world? Of course, it doesn't make sense to call it "anti-Semitism" because the Arabs are "Semites," too, but, at the same time, it doesn't make sense to call it "anti-Zionism" because now, tragically, it has gone FAR beyond mere opposition to the state of Israel. (I used to live in India, where there are the most Muslims of any country in the world, and there, nowadays, you don't dare tell anyone you are 1/4th Jewish, as I am.) Also, doesn't Nazi-style anti-Semitism have a precedent in the Crusades, during which Jews and Muslims were lumped together? And, also, what are you saying about the early Christians and their "anti-Judaism"? --That they "hated the sin, but loved the sinner"?

check ya

[belisariuss.livejournal.com]

I recently had the whole
antisemitism
vs
antijudaism debate

and
sadly
1/3 of the people I was talking to
didn't come away from it
any better
so
I'm still smarting from that one

also
I might put things in simple terms

but....
I am not trying to be condescending

sometimes I am condescending
which
would be nice
if it didn't usually result in me being wrong
and looking stupid

I hate it though
when I put things in simple terms
and other people get offended

it's not like I assume
everyone will get offended

I just like to guard against it


as for anti and anti

the problem is largely one of literalism
and semantics

the simplest example
of the difference between antijudaism
and antisemitism


imagine you believed the entire universe was made up of little blue squares

and
imagine their were people who believed the world was made up of little orange triangles

now
say the triangle people strongly disagreed with you
and hated you for it
and spat on you
at every chance they had
and said you were going to triangle hell

now
that would be antijudaism

now
say
you had a child
who decided s/he believed in the triangles
and then was still spat upon
because s/he was the child of a square believer
because of some "racial" connection to his/her parent

that's antisemitism

now
I give that little example
because
in my life time
enough people have refused to admit the differences
between the two terms
that now I'm mildly annoyed by them
haha


the counter argument
is usually
don't both of the ideas
usually lead the same place

say I am walking down the street
and I know so and so is jewish
and I hollar out
hey so and so... quit being so jewish

was I antisemitic
or antijudaic?

does it really matter?

I discussed this with a former professor of mine
he said antijudaism
seemed a little more virulent
since
it had a religious justification

I still feel that racially motivated hate
combined with a religious justification
is worse than just a religious hate

the crusaders were still generally antijudaic

they targeted jews
because of what they believed

and
they connected the jews of their day
to the jews of christ's time
because of what each believed
or
what each was presupposed to believe

they grouped jews with muslims
or the fun term saracens

they grouped muslisms and jews together
because of what each group believed

if a muslism became a christian
or a jew a christian
there would be little reason to persecute them any longer


it wasn't until the reconquista
when a large number of jews converted to christianity
and then were still held to be "tainted"
by judaism
that a term like antisemitism

even your term
1/4 jewish
to me
is rather antisemitic

I almost would ask
do you only practice 1/4th of the festivals
or only celebrate the sabbath
1 day a month?


there is no such thing
as a 1/4 jew

it's a simple issue of silly racial ideas

the muslims you speak of
are antisemitic

but
they didn't originate the idea

we can thank spanish christians for that


Constantine

Re: check ya

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

I don't want to quibble with you--honest, I don't--and some of the stuff you say makes a great deal of sense (especially when you suggest THAT, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S NO REAL DIFFERENCE), but my understanding of the Spanish phobia against the marranos and conversos was that they believed that Judaism--the religion WAS STILL BEING PRACTISED by these people, but in secret. It was the religion that drove them bananas, because they seemed to believe--despite tremendous evidence to the contrary (Teresa of Avila was, by descent, a Jewess)--that it'd be impossible for a Jew to convert to Christianity and STAY CONVERTED. Somehow, they seemed to believe that the tendency to practise the religion was an atavistic impulse. I don't think, then, that the Spanish version of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism--call it what you will--was really like the Nazis' version, involving crack-brained, pseudo-scientific theories about race. The Spaniards weren't interested in exterminating a people--just in separating them from the devout, who, supposedly, might become contaminated by Jewish religious practice--same as they were determined to keep Protestantism out of the Iberian peninsula, as well. But that's my take on it, gleaned from historical readings, and I may be wrong.

one thing leads to another... we are not victims of history unless we are not participants

[belisariuss.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to suggest that the reconquista
and its after affects
were the full blown realization of nazi anti semitism

only the beginnings

you're right
in that the phobia
at least in the beginning
of the marranos
appears to be about religion

but
this changes dramatically with pietro caraffa
and the statute of toledo

limpieza de sangre
cannot be held to be the traditional antijudaic line

the spanish may not have been concerned with extermination
but
extermination
isn't necessary
to prove genocide

in fact
the spanish were more than likely guilty of genocide
since
they sought
not only to separate
the holy from the unholy
but to destroy the jews way of life

this under the genocide convention
constitutes genocide

Constantine