Talossan Christian Fellowship

[Owen Edwards]

1) Bear in mind the semantic issues surrounding the use of "Jew".

2) Have you read John 8? The Pharisees begin to criticize him and call Jesus a liar, and so Jesus firmly rebuffs them. He makes it clear that their behaviour is wrong. He then speaks to some Jews who believed in him but were wavering under pressure, and tells them to keep the course. They fail to understand the implications of "being freed" by Jesus, and cite Abraham as their ancestor. After Jesus seeks to explain, and the waverers again refuse to understand and cite Abrahamic tradition.

So, John 8:39b-41, to get you up to date:

Jesus said to them: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did."
They said to him: "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."
Jesus said to them: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word." And that goes into v42 onwards.

It is quite evident the quote is not about all Jews, nor even about "Jewry", but about waverers whose arrogance and self-satisfaction is damaging their belief.

[Deleted]

owenfsf said:

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.

Thank you for clearing that up.

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.)

You're confusing the verb in hebrew "Ha-Satan" (said: "hah-Saht-tan) which is "to accuse" or "to be adversarial." But what you are actually showing is that Satan, in fact, is not stagnant, but dynamic. It is a role, not one being.

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.

Yes and no. The hebrew text actually refers to him as "ha-saht-tan" which is where a lot of confusion comes from. In the instance of the fall, this, otherwise, unnamed Angel took on the role of Satan. In other respects, yes, you are dead on. However, the use of the Hebrew "ha-satan" to later be translated to "lucifer" for this particular character is where one could point out, Christians confuse the two as on in the same. As you showed above, the role of Satan is dynamic, not stagnant, it is a verb, it is a title.

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.

Perhaps, and I think you have a valid point. However, to keep it extremely basic, in Job, we do have an angel, playing the role as Satan, questioning the loyalty of a man. God allows this to occur. Take into consideration, in the text, it is not "Satan" that tempts job, it is "the Satan." Satan, in this instance, is a member of the celestial order. Satan is acting as prosecutor, and is, in no way, a fallen angel, but rather, one who is watching over mankind and acting as their accuser.

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).

I would not go as far to say that there is an unlikely influence of Zoroastrianism on early Hebrew/Judaic belief. Zoroastrianism, itself, is one of my favourite religions to study. If I were to ever convert out of being a Satanist, I would probably convert to this dying religion.

It is hard to truly measure the extent of how much various religions borrowed from each other. I believe you're referring to a time when the Hebrews were more Pagans or polytheistic than monotheistic. the evolution of El from head god to the one true god is actually an exciting thing to study.

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.

WE're doing a good job at keeping it basic.

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 concur entirely. The New Testament is a lot more complex with Satan. Take into consideration, the compiling of the Bible during Nicea was to spread a certain idea a group of men had for Christianity. For me, there is where I divide Early Christianity up from Middle Christianity. But that is relative.

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.

See, I disagree, I think your references actually work the opposite way. They show and validate more the point that in the OT, no two angels ever are Satan more than once, and that in each instance of reference to one who is playing the role, it is unique. The confusion, I believe, of Lucifer and Satan comes from mistranslation from Hebrew, and the adopting of a Roman God to reference the Babylonian King.

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.

The is a distinct difference, a I have stated, between Modern and Classical anti-Semitism. John was the father of classical anti-semitism. Jews should be converted at all cost. But, CONVERSION MEANS YOU ARE NO LONGER A JEW. This is religious based Classical Anti-semitism, which John was a huge influence on. Modern Anti-Semitism is the belief that even if a Jew converts, they are still a Jew. It is based on race. As I stated, Martin Luther, who became increasingly anti-semitic as he got older, felt that Jews should either be killed or converted. A lot of this was influenced by John and other early Christian theologians.

Also remember, it is the Jews who said "You are no longer Jewish" to Paul, it was the Jews, not the Romans, who are being portrayed as killing Christ, it is the Jew who continues to affront Christianity by not recognizing the savior.

[Deleted]

siervicul said:

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.

John called for conversion mostly. A case for genocide is hard to pain as expelling them would have suffice. But, as I ahve been stated, people are confusing modern antisemitism with classical antisemitism. Those are two different animals.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

vitooliver said:

John called for conversion mostly. A case for genocide is hard to pain as expelling them would have suffice. But, as I ahve been stated, people are confusing modern antisemitism with classical antisemitism. Those are two different animals.

Right. What you call "classical antisemitism" is sometimes referred to as "anti-Judaism" to emphasise the distinction. John called for conversion, certainly. I think even stretching that to supporting expulsion is highly questionable.

[Trotxâ]

alexandreu said:

I mean... the new testament basically calls for the killing of all Jews...

For balance to Gavárþic'h's cranked up rhetoric, here's a link to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion":

www.theprotocolsofzion.org/

[Owen Edwards]

THEYRE OUT TO GET ME

[Deleted]

siervicul said:

vitooliver said:

John called for conversion mostly. A case for genocide is hard to pain as expelling them would have suffice. But, as I ahve been stated, people are confusing modern antisemitism with classical antisemitism. Those are two different animals.

Right. What you call "classical antisemitism" is sometimes referred to as "anti-Judaism" to emphasise the distinction. John called for conversion, certainly. I think even stretching that to supporting expulsion is highly questionable.

Well you may be right. But take into consideration, how is John wording the story of Jesus's crucifixition? He is paingting the Jews, not the Romans, as the culprits.

That could be said to inspire hatred, seeking retribution. It is certainly used by some far right wing Christians today.

[Owen Edwards]

V, I'll respond re: the Adversary later.

Agreed 100% that some people have used John's portrayal of the Crucifixion to attack Jewish people. Of course, I suspect those people would have used something to attack some minority anyway - true class will out regardless, after all.

In the Synoptics, the Temple is still seen as the malefactor, but Pilate is given a far more ambivalent role - he frankly finds the thing tedious and Jesus a pain in the neck.

The problem with John is a problem of contextualising the semantics - something a lot of folk since have failed to do, often on purpose. That is regrettable, and disgusting, but shouldn't extinguish the positive qualities of John (such as they are, depending on your point of view!).

[Deleted]

Side note, bit irrelevent, but piece of trivia none the less. About 5 years after Pilate had Christ "taken out" (sorry, my sicilian side is coming up...) he also crucified another "prophet" or someone claiming to be the messiah, except the second time around, he got the guy's disciples. You know how it was back then, any person could claim to be a prophet. Moreover, I have enjoyed reading some theories that the biblical Jesus is actually a little bit of various different persons living in that time.

[Owen Edwards]

"Jesus Myth" (and "Old Testament Amalgam") theories are generally quite inventive, for sure. I still prefer the one about how Jesus is code for magic mushrooms.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

clemente said:

For balance to Gavárþic'h's cranked up rhetoric, here's a link to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion":

www.theprotocolsofzion.org/

Fortunately, John Paul II was too smart to fall for that hoax. Because as we all know, every Pope before him swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

[Owen Edwards]

Oh what have I started...

[Trotxâ]

City Journal has an interesting article that might explain the attitudes of some Talossans posting in this thread. The article, by former Harvard and UCLA professor James Q. Wilson (winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom), points out an interesting love-hate relationship. Here are two good paragraphs:

Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?

The evidence about evangelical attitudes is clear. In 2006, a Pew survey found that evangelical Christians were more favorable toward Israel than the average American was — and much more sympathetic than either mainline Protestants or secularists. In another survey, evangelical Christians proved much likelier than Catholics, Protestants, or secular types to back Israeli control of Jerusalem, endorse Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and take Israel’s side in a Middle Eastern dispute. (Among every religious group, those who are most traditional are most supportive of Israel. The most orthodox Catholics and Protestants, for instance, support Israel more than their modernist colleagues do.)

Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favor: in one Pew survey, 42 percent of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction — about 16 percent — of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.

I'm not a dispensationalist (and I'm not trying to start a debate about THAT), but find these statistics interesting. See the whole article for more.

Sir T

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is an excellent book on the subject, as well, entitled "The Sword of Constantine". I highly recommend it.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

clemente said:

City Journal has an interesting article that might explain the attitudes of some Talossans posting in this thread. The article, by former Harvard and UCLA professor James Q. Wilson (winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom), points out an interesting love-hate relationship. Here are two good paragraphs:

That is an interesting article. However, Dréu is neither religiously Jewish nor a Zionist. So the fact that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to be strong supporters of Israel is not a big positive for him.