The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[Adrift]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[JonathanL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.