Of course the new testament too has been accused of being anti semitic. And thus the forces of political correctness have been altering sacred scripture, replacing "The Jews" with "The Jewish Leaders" in various modern protestant translations of the bible. Does that mean the old protestant translations were anti-semitic I wonder?
The NT was written by Jews. Hence, the charge of anti-Semitism is nonsensical.The same cannot be said of the Orthodox liturgy. Do you defend the liturgical imprecations against the Jewish people?
Wouldn't we as more Reformed-type people not be able to relate to some of this, though?-The 10-page declaration issued Thursday calls for the renunciation of replacement theology>>Holders-to of Covenant Theology get that from some Dispensationalists, don't they?-"Jews=Christ-killers", -references to Jews as "God-killers.">>I mean; I wouldn't say it that way, but in one sense that is true.-"the Jewish tribe which condemned you to crucifixion, repay them, Oh Lord,">>This sounds kind of like an imprecatory Psalm...-"Christ has risen but the Jewish seed has perished,">>OK, this one is pretty bad. I guess to me those first 4 are borderline; that last one kinda puts it over the top though.
Rhology said:***QUOTE***Wouldn't we as more Reformed-type people not be able to relate to some of this, though?-The 10-page declaration issued Thursday calls for the renunciation of replacement theology>>Holders-to of Covenant Theology get that from some Dispensationalists, don't they?***END-QUOTE***I agree with you that supercessionism is a valid debate.***QUOTE***-"Jews=Christ-killers", -references to Jews as "God-killers.">>I mean; I wouldn't say it that way, but in one sense that is true.***END-QUOTE***But true for which Jews? The 1C Palestinian Jews who were directly complicit in the crucifixion? Yes.But to include this in the liturgy suggest a corporate, diachronic guilt on the part of all Jews who ever lived or died. What about the OT saints or NT writers or other Jewish followers of Jesus? What we have here is condemnation of Jews qua Jews.***QUOTE***-"the Jewish tribe which condemned you to crucifixion, repay them, Oh Lord,">>This sounds kind of like an imprecatory Psalm...***END-QUOTE***The problem is not with the principle of imprecations, but what authorization the Orthodox have to pronounce a general imprecation upon the Jewish people en masse.
Excellent points, w/ the caveat of "Let His blood be on ourselves and our children!"But then again, what authority did they have to call down such things on their children?But then again, there's something to be said for the fact that the Jewish people have long rejected the Messiah en masse.But yeah, that leads us right to the Disp vs Covenant question. But I agree, I'm just babbling here.
But then again, what authority did they have to call down such things on their children?>This derives from the covenant acceptance and renewals of the OT. It goes along with Aaron bowing before Melchizedek while still "in" Abraham, in Hebrews. When that generation of 1st century Jews said this, they broke the covenant. This was the ultimate apostasy for the nation. Thereby they cut off themselves and their children; they called down the curses of the covenant for them as surely as the generation that accepted the Mosaic covenant and its renewal in Deuteronomy represented themselves and their children.
I guess no one around here had read the old testament lately.
I don't know about you, but I haven't read anything outside of Revelation and a few select chapters of Matthew for the longest time.
I'd take a good look @ the Pentateuch then to see how the concept of represenation of one generation for the other cashes out in terms of the covenant's acceptance of the curses and blessings @ its inception and renewal. I might add the first chapters of Acts. In Peter's first sermon, remember, he tells the people gathered for Pentecost that they were the ones who crucified the Lord. The implication is that the mix of people gathered in Jerusalem that day parallels the mix gathered for Passover when Jesus was crucified a few weeks prior. There is a table of nations there too. There's a fairly long tradition that this table of nations in Acts corresponds to the Table of Nations that lies between the accounts of Noah and Abraham in Genesis. So, Peter is proclaiming not only that the Jews killed Jesus, but the mob that cried out for it was not just confined to the Jews of Judea, but was a cosmopolitan group that also represented "every tribe tongue and nation." What's happening then is that on one hand the Jews accepted the curses of the covenant for their children and themselves and for the nations that they represented, thereby implicating not only themselves but "every tribe tongue and nation" gathered together in the Holy City that day. Now, on Pentecost Peter brings the formal indictment in the lawsuit, the verdict is "in," and they are all guilty, and by extension not only the Jews but the rest of the nations. The tongues spoken on that day are heard in the languages of those persons, persons from the nations whose tongues were confused @ Babel. God thus reverses the curse of Babel for a time, and, even though the first converts were all Jewish, draws together not only Jews from Israel but "from the ends of the earth," prefiguring the eventual ingathering of the nations, including the Gentiles, into one people.
But the Greeks are even worse than that. They describe their ghettos as "homogeneity" colonies and themselves, even when they are born here and citizens, as "expatriates." In their services, they pray for the "Greek nation and American people" because they refuse to consider an inhomogeneous country a nation. And they have this evil saint, Cosmus Aitalius, who advocated ethnic cleansing. And do not forget the involvement of Greek shipping in Bringing black slaves to America. http://www.geocities.com/gcomney/goatrfm.html