Talossan Christian Fellowship

[Deleted]

john said:

The New Testament calls for the killing of all Jews???!! Dude, the New Testament was written by Jews; its central "hero" is a Jew; all the main characters in it (the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys") are Jews; and it doesn't call for killing anyone. This comment would be laughably silly, if it weren't such an ugly thing to say.

Maybe crank the rhetoric down a notch or two?

— John R

The very existence of jews is a constant slap in the face to Christianity. No one is going to dispute me when I say that Christianity stems from Judaism, Christians merely believe the Messiah has already come, Jews assert that the Christian savior is in fact NOT the savior. John is often called the father of anti-Semitism. This link explains it a lot better than I: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anti-Semitism#The_New_Testament

[Deleted]

edwardwadas said:

vitooliver said:

I would not support such a law, but was merely making a point. However, it is a rather valid point.

Just out of curiosity, why not? If you are against religious congregation, but for the existence of such religious institutions, your argument seems rather contradictory to me (unless of course, I am misunderstanding your premise, in which case I would appreciate it if you would correct me).

I am not against the group, I am not against religious congregation. This group isn't necessary about holding service every Sunday, what is the point of your bake sale, etc. However, I'm not against you forming your group, I'm politely letting you know it will be monitored and questioned as to ensure it does not influence politics.

vitooliver said:

It is not a far stretch, just as even within my own community there are radicals, they exist in all faiths. Numbers do not have to have an influence on how a group has influence on politics. I am not comparing a small group of Talossans, I am comparing a small group of HUMANS.

Your "Talossans vs. Humans" statement is a good point. However, until I see any sort of actual threat of attempted Christian dominance over Talossan politics, I'm going to gamble and guess that no Talossan is a terrorist or extreme bigot, and conclude that this institution, for the time being, is politically harmless and is nothing more than a friendly little "We Heart Jesus" club (which hopefully will get around to having a bake sale).[/quote]

Most groups start harmless... sorry good Sir, that fails to be a valid argument.

Dreu, want to post those results from that statistic study you did?

EDIT: Coding Mistake[/quote]

[Owen Edwards]

So what was Hitler using bogus physiogonomy about? He used EVERYTHING to justify what he did - and that includes the God Science. He despised religion, and found Christian Germans one of his most tenacious foes - cf Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hans Dohanyi, Niemoller, etc.

Also, the idea of "early Christianity" is deceptive in itself because it was very variant. I would argue - being an amateur theologian and Christian historian - that where a lot of literal interpretations are latter-day (Creationism, notably), the idea of the fallen Morning Star being a perpetual enemy, in a literal sense, is PRE-Christian and carries over through inter-Testamental documents into the Early Church Fathers, and so forth.

If you honestly think the NT has an anti-semitic bent - or even that John has - and you have read said NT, rather than simply read a synopsis talking about anti-Semitism, then I fear debate on the matter is fruitless. I don't feel Jews are constantly slapping me in my face, certainly (except when they LITERALLY are). Jesus knew that not everyone, not even of his people, would buy into him. It's called free will (or predestination, if you take that tortuos, futile route, lol).

[Deleted]

owenfsf said:

So what was Hitler using bogus physiogonomy about? He used EVERYTHING to justify what he did - and that includes the God Science. He despised religion, and found Christian Germans one of his most tenacious foes - cf Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hans Dohanyi, Niemoller, etc.

Also, the idea of "early Christianity" is deceptive in itself because it was very variant. I would argue - being an amateur theologian and Christian historian - that where a lot of literal interpretations are latter-day (Creationism, notably), the idea of the fallen Morning Star being a perpetual enemy, in a literal sense, is PRE-Christian and carries over through inter-Testamental documents into the Early Church Fathers, and so forth.

If you honestly think the NT has an anti-semitic bent - or even that John has - and you have read said NT, rather than simply read a synopsis talking about anti-Semitism, then I fear debate on the matter is fruitless. I don't feel Jews are constantly slapping me in my face, certainly (except when they LITERALLY are). Jesus knew that not everyone, not even of his people, would buy into him. It's called free will (or predestination, if you take that tortuos, futile route, lol).

Hitler used a lot of things to inspire his message of hate. A major factor was the use of religion. The point of the rise of Martin Luther as a national hero in Germany during the 20s, Hitler's adoption of many of the suggestion Luther makes, not to mention Hitler having to use the religious (Christ Killer) aspect to help inspire hatred towards Jews. Moreover, I did not say the Jews are constantly slapping you in the face, I said the existence, the denial, the fact that they are perpetually saying "no, you're understanding of OUR scripture is wrong, Jesus cannot be the Messiah because of a-z." This was a major point in contention, and made by numerous early Christian scholars. Even reading Gregory of Tours "History of the Franks" you see obvious antisemitism.

In the New Testament, I've read a number (not all) of the books. If you can sit there and honestly tell me the Gospel According to John is not antisemitic, there is no point in continuing this conversation. Also, I do not need to flatter myself with "as a Christian historian..." The synopsis posted was merely for reference. The futile point of any conversation is when one has to start validating what they say with such pointless statements. I could get up right now and ask a number of people in my office (who are either in Rabbinical school, are Rabbis, or have taking many courses in this field of study) about various Christian/Jewish dogma, which I have done (for example when I was writing a paper on classical v. modern antisemitism). Once, only once, have I ever seen any of them reference their degrees, and it was only done to put someone who was doing just that in their place. But, the people in my office, as well as my own knowledge on the subject, does not instantly validate myself over anyone else.

But, on the topic of Satan, I specifically asked my supervisor, who is a friend of mine, about Satan in the old testament. (I remembered he wrote his thesis on Satan). He confirmed what I said and added to it. Yes, in the OT, Satan is a dynamic title that moves from being to being or rather angel to angel. In all references to Satan it is of a different entity taking on the role of the verb "ha-Sa-tan." Satan, in the NT, however, is much more complex.

*edit* forgot to put in the last sentence

[Vit Caçeir]

vitooliver said:

However, I'm not against you forming your group, I'm politely letting you know it will be monitored and questioned as to ensure it does not influence politics.

Naturally, this is acceptable. But from the way you make it sound, you're against the group's very existence.

vitooliver said:

Most groups start harmless... sorry good Sir, that fails to be a valid argument.

Yes, and the way to prevent them is to disband them when they become harmful, not when they're the equivalent of some kind of Bible Study Group. I used to go to one of those when I was studying Christianity, and seldom did I see any aspirations of world domination.

Again, when a pro-Christian/anti-everything else piece of legislation comes into the Cosa, it will be met with scrutiny and rejection. The TCF will be placed under a considerable amount of suspicion, and most likely a considerable amount of (private and governmental) investigation. Anything less is a failure to defend the rights of religious freedom this Kingdom holds, and anything more is an infringement of said rights.

I'm going to remain clearly on the secular side of this argument.... as a Deist, I question the existence of truly Holy Texts in the first place, so my input probably would not be appreciated by either party, nor would it be beneficial. However, I ask both sides to act like their age, not like their shoe size, and admit that they have differing beliefs on religion, and that our laws (whether you like it or not) defend your right to do so.

EDIT: Addition of final paragraph.

[Deleted]

edwardwadas said:

vitooliver said:

However, I'm not against you forming your group, I'm politely letting you know it will be monitored and questioned as to ensure it does not influence politics.

Naturally, this is acceptable. But from the way you make it sound, you're against the group's very existence.

vitooliver said:

Most groups start harmless... sorry good Sir, that fails to be a valid argument.

Yes, and the way to prevent them is to disband them when they become harmful, not when they're the equivalent of some kind of Bible Study Group. I used to go to one of those when I was studying Christianity, and seldom did I see any aspirations of world domination.

Again, when a pro-Christian/anti-everything else piece of legislation comes into the Cosa, it will be met with scrutiny and rejection. The TCF will be placed under a considerable amount of suspicion, and most likely a considerable amount of (private and governmental) investigation. Anything less is a failure to defend the rights of religious freedom this Kingdom holds, and anything more is an infringement of said rights.

I'm going to remain clearly on the secular side of this argument.... as a Deist, I question the existence of truly Holy Texts in the first place, so my input probably would not be appreciated by either party, nor would it be beneficial. However, I ask both sides to act like their age, not like their shoe size, and admit that they have differing beliefs on religion, and that our laws (whether you like it or not) defend your right to do so.

EDIT: Addition of final paragraph.

While I appreciate what you have to say and trust that this group will remain strictly a bible study group for bake sales and car washes, what Owen and I are disagreeing on is theology, not necessarily saying to the other: No, your religion is wrong. And we're most certainly not proselytizing.

[Owen Edwards]

V, I went to the length of admitting myself an amateur, to specifically point out that I can neither claim expertise nor am I entirely ignorant. Hope that clears that up - no need to attribute motive where there is none.

As far as Satan goes, I trust you will not mind me bringing up relevant apocrypha and inter-Testamental literature.

The Satan figure appears in the first two Books of Enoch, which are generally dated within a century of Christ's birth (in 1 Enoch he is called Semjaza, but he is presented in the same light as in 2 Enoch as Satanael). He is the Prince of Fallen Angels, the one who knows the difference between righteousness and sinfulness; clearly a reference to the Serpent (who is punished by God, so must, if working within a Just God paradigm, be rebellious himself). Elsewhere, Mastema (who suggested Abraham be tested re: Isaac's sacrifice) is an accuser figure, whilst the devil of the Book of Wisdom is represented as an adversary. (Accuser and adversary are not, of course, opposing concepts, or they need not be.)

The Isaiah reference to "Lucifer" is of course a reference to a Babylonian King. The term is, however, the name of a Babylonian god, and the purpose of the reference is to draw on popular legend. It is either a cultural borrowing, or, theologically speaking, Lucifer is one of those minor "gods" (cf the beginning of the OT, obviously) who distract from the glory of the One.

Job is a complex case and in many ways falls outside the normal stream of Testamental theology; we can get back to it, but I fear the implicit problems make the Satan-Accuser role of dubious provenance. A theology of interpreting the heavenly conversation as metaphorical (and indeed, perhaps the whole thing as metaphorical) confuses the matter further.

Zechariah presents Satan as semi-independent, and in opposition to God. The Chronicler, meanwhile, casts Satan as a tempter, in opposition to God. Confusingly, he refers to David's rage at the people of Israel in Samuel as this Satan's work, whereas it is presented as God's work in the older text. This will either be some sort of influence from Zoroastrianism (unlikely), a contradiction in terms - or requires a compromise (the older tradition of referring ever action to God is not intended literally).

The Azazel and Leviathan references are rather more confusing - I don't know if you'd like to include them in the discussion or not.

Christian theology about the enemy is indeed quite expansive and might bear missing out for at least the discussion of the developing early role(s) of Satan/etc.

I think that the references are disparate enough - and more importantly, culturally distinct - that a reflective theology is required, which leads to the conclusion that identifying them all as one enemy is not an outlandish proposition.

re: John, even if one does not buy it as written by John the Apostle, it was written by a Jewish Christian, aimed, probably, at the Jewish Diaspora. Despite this, it lays responsibility for Jesus's death on "Jews" rather than a corrupt hierachy - hence allegations of anti-Semitism.

It The semantics of the way the world "Jew" is used in John make it distinct from "the common people", meaning it is a term reserved for the leadership (rather than tarring the whole people - some of whom believed, some of whom did not, but they were not the "Jews" who caused trouble). In some specific instances, the term Jew is used in positive terms, but always in contexts outside of that of the ongoing issue of the "corrupt" Temple leadership ie speaking of where salvation finds its traditional source, etc.

Was a Jewish Christian writing to Jews in an evangelical mission, despite his apparently evident hatred of them? Well, hardly. He identified leadership figures as a malignant influence on the common people. Why he used the term Jew, when he plainly did not mean all Jewry, is a matter for debate; certainly elsewhere he hints at the universality of salvation in the "modern" paradigm, inspired by Christ, and has, perhaps, stopped using the distinction of Jew/Gentile in an everyday sense - reserving it for when criticizing certain structures and practises.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

john said:

The New Testament calls for the killing of all Jews???!! Dude, the New Testament was written by Jews; its central "hero" is a Jew; all the main characters in it (the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys") are Jews; and it doesn't call for killing anyone. This comment would be laughably silly, if it weren't such an ugly thing to say.

Maybe crank the rhetoric down a notch or two?

— John R

Gospel of John, your highness

EDIT: What V said
EDIT2: This doesn't mean Christians are antisemetic! But just as a note, the Roman Catholic Church's position on Jews until JP II was that "The Jews killed our lord, shouldn't they suffer horribly?" Some people... and just some people... might see that as a bit antisemetic

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Would that be the Gospel of King John ?

[Owen Edwards]

Dreu, see my post.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

mick said:

Would that be the Gospel of King John ?

Why not... just replace every other word with Babaganoush

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

owenfsf said:

Dreu, see my post.

I've just read it and... I see your point, but he's not very good at appealing to the Jewish population...

[Owen Edwards]

To the 21st century Jewish population, he's not appealing, sure. It would have been clear at the time what the contextual use of terms was.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Jesus to the Jews:

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. ... He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8: 42-47)"

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

alexandreu said:

Jesus to the Jews:

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. ... He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8: 42-47)"

Disagree with it if you want, point out (rightly) that various passages in John have been used to justify a lot of horribly anti-Semitic actions and policies over the centuries, but there's a HUGE difference between that and claiming that the Gospel of John actually calls for the killing of all Jews. The latter does not in any way follow from what you posted above, and it's really unfair to make a claim like that.