The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Constantine is clearly relevant because he began Christian anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that continued for the next ~1,600 years.

Source: http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c8.htm

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.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Constantine is clearly relevant because he began Christian anti-Jewish pogroms and persecution that continued for the next ~1,600 years.

Source: http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c8.htm

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.

© Copyright Original Source

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=robrecht;163655]

snip . . . snip nonesense

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]

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]

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]

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.