The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[robrecht]

This is in line with my statements the being accursed is being self-accursed by their denial of the Revelation form God.

Again your reference to the Baha'i writing as anti-Jewish and advocating violence against Jews is not based on sound Baha'i scripture.

I never said the Baha'i scriptures advocated violence against Jews.

I believe this is Sen's response, not mine

You believe what is Sen's response and not yours?

It still remains third party anonymous accusations, which represent a fallacy and unethical.

Untrue. I stand behind my own impressions as I myself have stated them and I invited you to check with others for their impressions as I may be mistaken. That is merely an invitation, not a third party accusation.

From the Baha'i perspective the Quran is as legitimate source as the Tanakh.

So it appears you do not have a Jewish source for this quotation attributed to the Jews.

[robrecht]

Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.

... I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus and of beholding the Face of God.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

[shunyadragon]

"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

This is in line with my statements the being accursed is being self-accursed by their denial of the Revelation form God.

Again your reference to the Baha'i writing as anti-Jewish and advocating violence against Jews is not based on sound Baha'i scripture.

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:



I believe this is Sen's response, not mine

No fallacy at all. I merely invited you to ask others what they thought since I may indeed be mistaken in my impressions.

It still remains third party anonymous accusations, which represent a fallacy and unethical. I have the respect of long term members of Tweb like Glen Morton and Tassman and others, even though we disagree strongly on some issues. It is true that the gang of four accused me of being an atheist, or a strong agnostic and not a theist, and even took it to the board and failed. If I did not challenge beliefs and piss a few off I would consider my presence on Tweb a failure.

Getting back to the quote from your holy scriptures, perhaps you could provide the reference to where the Jews say 'the hand of God is chained up.’ Sen referred to the Koran, but I'm wondering about the original Jewish source of this supposed quote or sentiment.

From the Baha'i perspective the Quran is as legitimate source as the Tanakh.

[paramount]

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

See here:

[robrecht]

Nonetheless you described my views 'as it seems or my impression mode' without citing me specifically, which is hardly ethical.

"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Here is the direct quotation of your initial response:

These are good sources. There are consequences to rejecting the promised messiah and the guidance and blessings that the Messiah brings. The world and the people do suffer from the rejection ot Divine Revelation. Actually I believe when most Jews rejected Christ, the religion became Roman and the consequences that followed.

Vague references to the views of 'unnamed others' is an unfortunate fallacy.

No fallacy at all. I merely invited you to ask others what they thought since I may indeed be mistaken in my impressions.

Getting back to the quote from your holy scriptures, perhaps you could provide the reference to where the Jews say 'the hand of God is chained up.’ Sen referred to the Koran, but I'm wondering about the original Jewish source of this supposed quote or sentiment.

[shunyadragon]

I did not quote you at all! But if you like, I can quote you.

I will agree to disagree on that, but if you are interested in the opinions of others on this point, go ahead and ask others if they feel if you have been fair to their religious beliefs. My impression is that you constantly ridicule the religious beliefs of others and try to show how your own religious beliefs or philosophy are superior. My impression could be wrong, of course, so please go ahead and ask others.

Nonetheless you described my views 'as it seems or my impression mode' without citing me specifically, which is hardly ethical. I consider my mode to debate hard, and yes I do not mix words and come down hard on Fundamentalist YEC/OEC Christians, and will continue to do so. I do cite sources and support my views, and I do at times when it is appropriate acknowledge my errors, and adjust my views based on sources.

Vague references to the views of 'unnamed others' is an unfortunate fallacy.

[robrecht]

That is not what I said, please do not misquote me.

I did not quote you at all! But if you like, I can quote you.

I have not trashed other religions.

I will agree to disagree on that, but if you are interested in the opinions of others on this point, go ahead and ask others if they feel if you have been fair to their religious beliefs. My impression is that you constantly ridicule the religious beliefs of others and try to show how your own religious beliefs or philosophy are superior. My impression could be wrong, of course, so please go ahead and ask others.

The fact that Christianity is highly anti-Jewish from Constantine to near the present and still a problem today is a fact of history since Constantine. The reasons and why they referred to scripture the way they did is another question. I explained to JohnnyP before that the NT is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the citations noted against Jews have nonetheless lead to a violent anti-Jewish history.

You will get no argument from me about the evils of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism that have been promoted by many Christians throughout history.

[shunyadragon]

You seemed to read the whole citation as referring to the opposition between Judaism and Christianity when in actuality it seems to be more a matter of the opposition between Judaism and Islam. It is funny to hear you complaining of the negativity of trashing others. Trashing the religions of others does not really witness to the superiority of the Baha'i way, which I believe should encourage what is good in the views of others.

That is not what I said, please do not misquote me. I have not trashed other religions. The fact that Christianity is highly anti-Jewish from Constantine to near the present and still a problem today is a fact of history since Constantine. The reasons and why they referred to scripture the way they did is another question. I explained to JohnnyP before that the NT is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but the citations noted against Jews have nonetheless lead to a violent anti-Jewish history.

Your reference to the Baha'i writings as anti-Jewish were flawed and explained. There is nothing in the Baha'i writings that advocates an anti-Jewish negative view toward Jews from the Baha'i perspective Your efforts to split frog hairs over the translation are meaningless, since the whole reference is understood as I explained. The intent was the consequences of rejecting the Revelation of God is violence and conflict. This is very much the witness in history and even today.

I will leave the splitting frog hairs of academic translation to Sen and you.

[robrecht]

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

You seemed to read the whole citation as referring to the opposition between Judaism and Christianity when in actuality it seems to be more a matter of the opposition between Judaism and Islam. It is funny to hear you complaining of the negativity of trashing others. Trashing the religions of others does not really witness to the superiority of the Baha'i way, which I believe should encourage what is good in the views of others.

[robrecht]

Yes, absolutely.

Then I don't see a problem. Of course that won't get you on the subway, but take it for what it's worth. Seems to me they should re-enroll you as fast as they can so as not to lose any more credibility.

To quote one of their statements:

I'm going to have to read this again later as its going over my head right now.

But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees.

I haven't read the original 'article' yet (I may get to it when I can), but I whole-heartedly agree with you. Properly understood, the New Testament, at least the more important parts of it, are very pro-Semitic/Jewish. Of course, 'properly understood' is easier said than done. The elements that are oftentimes exaggerated as anti-semitic or anti-Jewish are indeed polemical, but they were sometimes written from the perspective of those who were not in power and who were getting the shorter end of the stick at the time or in their recent past. 1 Thessalonians 2, which I consider to be probably authentic, as also do more and more NT exegetes recently, is more anti-authoritarian, anti-Judean, than anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, which is how it has been more frequently read throughout history. The Pharisees, as near as we can tell, were a very diverse group over time and had divided themselves into opposing camps before the time of Jesus so they were themselves rather unfair to each other, I suspect. I think Jesus himself got caught in the middle of a firestorm, somewhat of his own making, and which he probably enjoyed to some extent, but by the time that the New Testament was being written, there were few Pharisees around who still looked favorably on Jesus' controversial teaching, although Luke seems to be aware of some. For the most part, the New Testament is evidence of the previously Jewish culture of early Christians emerging into a new culture which was content to leave the Pharisees' disputes behind. The sad thing is, that by recovering as much as we can of the Pharisee culture, we can gain many insights into the context and depth of Jesus' teachings which most Christians will never realize.

[shunyadragon]

You would be amazed at the amount of negative language from Baha'u'llah in Baha'i writings. There are instances where he calls those who deny him and his enemies pigs, dogs, and donkeys amongst a range of other titles.

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

[Sen McGlinn]

By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

Yes, absolutely. To quote one of their statements:

But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees.

[robrecht]

There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.

I suspected as much. By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

[Sen McGlinn]

Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here, you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”

There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.

[Sen McGlinn]

Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

It is Arabic, a quote from the Quran, 5:64. The verb is L ` N, the pronunciation here is lu`enuu. They are accursed is a good translation. The referent is "the Jews" but in context it is those Jews who say "the Hand of God is chained up." This phrase had the same meaning as "the Gate of Revelation is closed" , which one finds in some Islamic theology texts. No doubt I should know the Christian equivalent too, but I haven't had my first coffee. In all these cases, the religious community protects its canon, and protects itself from schism, by saying there can be no further scriptures. Bahai does the same: "Bahai scripture" is a completed book, although not all its texts have been discovered. No new Bahai scripture can be written. This is understandable and necessary, but then this elides into a belief that God has stopped revealing himself, or his Will. That is blasphemous, it is an "accursed" assertion about God. The Creator God is the God of the new; who speaks in new tongues, and is known by new names.