Paul�s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

[RBerman]

Pretty simplistic, eh?

[firstfloor]

Pretty simplistic, eh?

Very broad brush, yes. Still not quite ready to answer your post at #23.

[JonathanL]

I agree. It's absolutely absurd to think that Christians would ever persecute or misunderstand Jews.

NORM

You're not able to defend your claim that the NT is anti-Semitic, so now you shift the goalposts?

[firstfloor]

You're not able to defend your claim that the NT is anti-Semitic, so now you shift the goalposts?

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemi...stament_1.html

[KingsGambit]

Let's not argue by weblink; what are the salient points that demonstrate this alleged anti-Semitism?

[firstfloor]

Let's not argue by weblink; what are the salient points that demonstrate this alleged anti-Semitism?

[OingoBoingo]

The same author also presumably wrote, Romans 9:1-3 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

I agree with Rberman, Eisenman sounds simplistic.

[KingsGambit]

The ESV has a footnote that says: "The Greek word Ioudaioi can refer to Jewish religious leaders and others under their influence, who opposed the Christian faith in that time." So it's not as clear cut as Eisenman makes it seem.

[JonathanL]

It's too daunting a task for me, but it would be interesting to collect all the negative assessments of Israel and the Jews in the Old Testament and compare them to the negative assessments of the Jews in the New Testament, and see if the NT is any worse than the OT when it comes to either quantity (taking into account the larger quantity of text in the OT) or severity. My gut instincts are telling me that the NT will atleast not come across as more negative than the OT and that the OT's description of the Hebrews in the relevant passages will not be any more lenient than the NT description of the first-century Jews.

I'm not up for the task of scouring through the entirety of the OT in search of these passages however, so it'll have to stay as an idea.

ETA: Just to clarify, the argument here would not be that the OT is anti-semitic and therefore it's okay if the NT is anti-semitic as well, but that since it would be absurd to accuse the OT of anti-semitism and the NT does not describe the Jews in a worse light than the OT, any charges of anti-semitism in the NT would fall prey to the Reductio ad absurdum argument. I.e if the NT is anti-semitic, so is the OT, which would be ridiculous.

[RumTumTugger]

You're not able to defend your claim that the NT is anti-Semitic, so now you shift the goalposts?

new amen button

[RumTumTugger]

You see what you want to see. I see, in the gospels, a Jewish man with Jewish followers who ran afoul of Jewish politicians. If you wanted to say that Jesus' life and teachings reflect a negative view of political power, you would have a case. The Sanhedrin did not accuse Jesus among themselves of sedition against Rome, but of blasphemy against God. However, knowing that Rome would not execute him for that, their false accusation before the Roman government was sedition.



i do not find your evidence compelling, but you are doing a better job establishing the anti-Christianism of NORM.

New amen button

[firstfloor]

I agree with Rberman, Eisenman sounds simplistic.

[OingoBoingo]

Eisenman's views on early Christianity (especially James and Paul) are known to be controversial within academia. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but when people who don't have much understanding about early Christianity bandwagon a scholar because his views align with their own...that's bad form in my opinion. Why don't you start off by reading some well respected mainstream scholars and see what they say. Check out Sanders, Meier, Brown, Metzger, Gundry, Bauckham, Dunn, Hurtado, and the like, then circle back round to the fringe element.

[firstfloor]

Eisenman's views on early Christianity (especially James and Paul) are known to be controversial within academia. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but when people who don't have much understanding about early Christianity bandwagon a scholar because his views align with their own...that's bad form in my opinion. Why don't you start off by reading some well respected mainstream scholars and see what they say. Check out Sanders, Meier, Brown, Metzger, Gundry, Bauckham, Dunn, Hurtado, and the like, then circle back round to the fringe element.

[OingoBoingo]

If you're on the fringe, probably everyone in the mainstream is "conservative". Radicals who reject the Apollo 11 moon landing, or who think that 9/11 is an inside job think that the truth is being covered up by some vague "authority". I wouldn't put too much stock in that sort of talk. Besides, the most important voices in mainstream Biblical scholarship over the last couple centuries are hardly "conservative" in the way most laymen think.