The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;163871]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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Empire

But what in the world is a "Franca standard"?

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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”

© Copyright Original Source

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]

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.