Pages

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Why should Jews trust Christians?

Antisemitism is on the rise in the US. Blind liberal support for Muslims translates into blind liberal animus towards Israel. Likewise, the Trump campaign has drawn anti-Semites out from under the rocks. So this might be as good a time as any to consider the question: why should Jews trust Christians? Given the persecution of Jews in church history, what, if anything, has changed? 

1. There are different ways of framing the issue. We might review some historic reasons why Jews were subject to persecution. If we reject the traditional reasons, then we reject persecution based on that rationale. For instance, Jews as well as some Gentiles claim the NT is a seedbed of antisemitism. 

i) As a Christian, I won't disown what the NT says. We've become so sensitized to how these passages have been abused that it takes an effort to hear them as they were originally meant to be heard. 

ii) The NT regards disbelief in Jesus to be culpable. I understand how Jews might find that offensive or even threatening. Keep in mind, though, that this is a two-way street. After all, many Jews regard belief in Jesus as culpable. Maimonides considered Christians to be heretical idolaters and polytheists, given their belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. Should I take offense at that? No. 

Take the 18 Benedictions, added to the Jewish liturgy, that pronounce a curse on Christians. It's really a malediction rather than benediction. Should I take offense at that? No. 

Consider what the Talmud says about Jesus:

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve. Tractate Sanhedrin (43a).

That indicts Jesus as a false prophet, according to the classic Mosaic criteria (Deut 13:1-5). Should I take offense at that? No. 

Likewise, the OT regards paganism as culpable. So both sides consider certain theological positions to be, not merely mistaken, but blameworthy. 

iii) It's not just Jewish disbelief in Jesus that's culpable; gentile disbelief in Jesus is culpable. 

2.  And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25).

i) Although Matthew attributes this to the entire crowd, surely that's rhetorical. Presumably, they didn't come there with a script which they recited in unison. To the contrary, this is a spontaneous outburst in response to Pilate. They didn't know ahead of time what he was going to say. 

Probably, what happened is that one person in the crowd said it, and the rest of the crowd nodded in agreement. Or perhaps some of them repeated it after one person initially said it. Matthew uses general language to indicate consent. Not that everyone said it, but they agreed with the sentiment. 

ii) The speaker or speakers lack the authority to inculpate later generations in their misdeeds. It's not their prerogative to extend the blame for their own misdeeds to later generations who did nothing of the kind. In fact, the Mosaic law repudiates that principle: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16).

Just because their statement assigns corporate responsibility to Jews in general doesn't make them collectively guilty. The speaker had no right to implicate others who were not party to the original misdeed. You can't make people complicit in wrongdoing by saying they are complicit in wrongdoing. They must actually be complicit in wrongdoing.

iii) The Jews who participated in the death of Christ died 2000 years ago. They have already been judged. 

iv) However, someone might say that when Jews continue to reject Jesus, that's an extension of the original crime. There's a grain of truth to that, but it's not confined to Jews. Rejecting Jesus is blameworthy in general, whether you're Jewish or gentile. 

In addition, there's often no significant distinction between Jews and gentiles. Many Jews are secular Jews or cultural Jews. Many Jews never read the NT, or even the OT. They are only Jewish in the sense that they had some Jewish ancestors. 

v) Although there's a sense in which disbelief in Jesus is a punishable offense, it's not my prerogative to punish that offense. That pertains to eschatological judgment. I'm not responsible for what you believe. It's not my duty to punish blasphemy, heresy, &c. You are accountable to God, and not to me, for what you believe. It would usurp God's prerogative for me to avenge blasphemy, heresy, &c.

vi) Conversely, Jesus was executed on a charge of blasphemy. So my own position is far more lenient than the traditional Jewish position. 

3. You are of your father the devil (Jn 8:44).

i) In context, that's a reference to the Jewish opponents of Jesus. 

ii) It's a two-way street. His opponents accused Jesus of being possessed. Both sides do that. 

iii) "Son of Belial" accusations are a stock feature of intramural Jewish polemics. 

4. and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9).

Passages like this (1 Thes 2:14-16 is another case in point) have their background in 1C Jewish persecution of Christians. However, the proper Christian response is not to retaliate, but to love and pray for our enemies and persecutors (Mt 5:43-48). Likewise, the default position of evangelicalism is to evangelize the lost. 

Moving further into church history, what accounts for the historic antisemitism in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Several factors:

5. The separation of church and synagogue led to interpreting the Bible in ways detached from its Jewish milieu. 

i) However, the Third Quest for the historical Jesus accentuates the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewishness of the NT. 

ii) Likewise, the messianic Jewish movement fuses church and synagogue. Both developments serve as a salutary corrective.

6. Supercessionism 

This is too complex to analyze in detail, in this post. 

i) However, as regards antisemitism, it conflates distinct issues. Replacing the old covenant with the new covenant is hardly equivalent to replacing Jews with Christians, or Jews with Gentiles, or Israel with the church. That's a category mistake. 

ii) As the Jewish Virtual Library puts it:

"All warnings and rebukes contained in the Jewish scriptures were applied to the Jewish people, while all praise and promise were applied to the Church."

Clearly that's arbitrary. Either consistently apply both OT maledictions and promises to the church, or don't apply either one to the church. 

7. The early church arose in autocratic societies with kings, emperors, and aristocrats. That gave the medieval church an authoritarian mindset. For instance, the polity of the Roman church mirrors the ancient Roman upper class: the pope is the counterpart to the emperor, the bishops ("princes") are counterparts to Roman aristocrats. By the same token, the Orthodox church has always been an organ of the state. 

The patrician aspect was further bolstered by the fact members of the upper clergy were often drawn from the ruling class. That was the educated class. 

Within that framework, theological dissent was treated as insubordination. Jews were treated in much the same way as "heretics" and "schismatics". The notion of civil tolerance for theological dissent was alien to that mindset. 

If, however, you reject that autocratic paradigm, then you nullify that rationale for religious persecution. As a low-church, free-church evangelical, I reject the autocratic paradigm. 

8. There's the question of how conversion is understood. Do we define conversion in terms of personal conviction or public conformity? If the latter, then that fosters a policy of mass conversion based on coercion rather than persuasion. This, in turn, underwrites the traditional one ruler/one religion policy (cuius regio, eius religio).  

Likewise, if you think saving grace is channeled through the sacraments, which function ex opera operato ("by the very fact of the action's being performed"), then conversion is not about convincing people to believe. 

Moreover, spiritual change is induced, not by the direct action of the Spirit, but mediated by sacramental actions, viz. baptism regeneration rather than immediate regeneration. The church becomes the mediator of salvation. 

By contrast, evangelical traditions that stress sola fide and immediate regeneration place far more emphasis on the persuasion and individual responsibility. Likewise, on a Zwinglian view, the sacraments aren't channels of saving grace. For an evangelical like me, there's nothing in my theology that would even give a foothold to coercive conversion. 

9. After transubstantiation became dogma, Catholics accused Jews of "Host desecration". Literally torturing wafers to make them bleed.

That's a dramatic example of how superstitious theology can be dangerous. 

10. Jews were scapegoated for the black plague. Accusations that Jews poisoned wells.

i) To begin with, that reflects a prescientific understanding of how the plague was transmitted.

ii) More to the point, since Jews were hardly immune to the plague, it would be mass suicide for them to engineer an outbreak, even if that was within their power. Jews were just as susceptible to infectious disease as their gentile neighbors.  

11. Let's take another historic example: Luther's antisemitism. What accounts for that? I'm not a Luther scholar, but this is my impression:

i) The law/gospel dichotomy has the potential to denigrate the OT and Judaism. In fairness, that's not distinctive to Lutheran theology. Baptist and Anabaptist theology accentuate the discontinuities between the old covenant and the new covenant. 

The potential for abuse is not a logical implication. Moreover, you have theological traditions that see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant. 

ii) Luther was a reactionary. Responding to Catholic legalism. And he could view Judaism through the same prism. 

That's a fairly idiosyncratic posture. Driven his personal experience. 

iii) It's sometimes said that Luther's antisemitism was theological rather than racial. Certainly there's some truth to that. However, his case against the Jews was larded with malicious urban legends about the Jews, viz. Jewish physicians plotting to poison Christians. That isn't theological. Rather, that reflects social conditioning. That's part of the European culture he was born into. 

iv) There were, however, eminent Lutheran theologians like Melanchthon and Osiander who took different position than Luther. Both men published tracts attacking the infamous blood libel. 

By contrast, Catholic polemicist John Eck, at the request of the bishop of Eichstätt, responded with a tract defending the blood libel. 

a) The blood libel is absurd. To begin with, kosher laws require Jews to drain blood from meat. If Jews are forbidden to consume animal blood, consumption of human blood would be even more prohibitive.  

b) Since Jews were already a threatened, persecuted minority, it would be mass suicide for them to kidnap Christian kids to exsanguinate. 

v) We might ask why some Protestants at the time took a more sympathetic view of their Jewish neighbors. One reason might be that back then, if you wanted to learn Hebrew, it was natural to study Hebrew with a rabbi. Once you befriended the rabbi and his family, it was harder to credit malicious rumors about Jews. 

By contrast, medieval Catholicism, which relied the Vulgate, had no use for Hebrew. It was Protestant Reformers who insisted on going back to the source. 

19 comments:

  1. Don't forget the historical politcal usefulness of antisemitism, distracting ignorant lumpenproles from injustice by giving them an "other" to abuse. Also, since the church needed the money generated via a capitalist economy but forbade lending on interest to Christians, forcing Jews into moneylending - and then attacking them for being good at it - made both political and economic sense to civil and ecclesiastical rulers. Both rulers also financed themselves via plunder, and Jews made convenient victims.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it has to do with the Jews generally holding to a lot of power in the US. Pushing for degeneracy, communism and atheism. I however don't paint all Jews like that. As an ethnic group they have higher IQ than Europeans and Eastern Asians so naturally their intelligence allowed them to succeed. Add into that their nepotism they climbed the ranks pretty quickly.

    In Eastern Europe Jews were major players in the communist movement and were against Christians. Look at the Bavarian socialist revolution. Israel to this day has a strong hand in American politics but is also a very pro-LGBT country. So there have been conservative Jews that have been a huge plus to society (i.e. Rothbard, Freidman) but they have also been a huge burden where ever they have decided to set up camp. Even today most leftist drivel is pushed by Jewish people.

    Of course this can interpreted that I'm an anti-semite. However I am stating the obvious. Whenever a European country advocates for border protection, sovereignty and shows a desire to retain its ethnic integrity it's usually a Jew criticizing them for being Nazis.

    My questions for you Steve are why should I as a Christian care much about Israel?
    How does ethnic Israel tie in with reformed (assuming you're amil or postmil) eschatology?
    How should a Christian feel/act towards Israel (i.e. voting for more foreign aid)?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you seem to have a bit of the Jew-baiter in you, as do those spokesmen pushing for so-called"ethnic integrity" in their countries; one wonders how many of those are Christians in any meaningful sense. Calling for immigrants to respect societal norms, language competence, a good work ethic, and lawful behavior in their host nations is another thing entirely. If New Dawn, Jobbik, British National Party, etc, aren't nazified in their calls for ethnic purity, who is? Besides, what business does a Christian have getting involved in this trahs? Are you a Christan American, or an American Christian? Where does racism fit in with Christian belief?

      Yes, Jewish contribution to American life has been a mixed bag; then again, which ethnic group hasn't had its share of bad eggs? Many Jews have been lefty agitators, but their agenda would go nowhere without the support of Gentiles.


      Delete
    2. I will flat out say I am Christian first, European second. But I am proud to be European. I don't hate any other ethnic group. I especially don't hate Jews. I don't like the aforementioned parties you listed either. I see the far right no different than the far left. Except the far left consists of either Jews or self loathing whites. The far right re-creates the same issues I have with big government. But also they teeter on idolatry given how much they practically worship their race.

      Also how do you deduce that I am racist? Because I believe race affects IQ (I am a YEC)?

      Ethnic homogeneity is beneficial for society. I have yet to see multi-racial countries do well let alone multi-cultural societies. Also ethnic purity, this is the 13 years of public indoctrination at work, doesn't mean death camps for non-whites etc. It means a healthy love of your people and heritage.

      Also what do you mean by Jew-baiter? If I were to change Jew for German most people wouldn't flinch. I guess its the conditioning at work that any criticism of Israel is equated with anti-antisemitism and Nazism.

      Delete
    3. As a libertarian and YEC I believe there is only 1 race - human; anything wlse is a social construct and potentially ininimcal to the spread of the Gospel.

      The Jew-baiter comment was directed at your ethic purity issue, and I don't mean that of your Eurpean pride (which I share). Europe worshiped the welfare state long before its immigration problem, and I fail to see how it benefitted from its attempt to become Judenrein - especially Eastern Europe, which got its just desserts for its persecution of Jews.

      I would and do flinch at insults to Germans - it's a Lutheran thing, I guess. As for criticising Israel, have at it but judge them by the same standard you do all nations; otherwise you are in fact an antisemite.

      Delete
    4. Well I disagree with you twice. I'm a theonomist/free market conservative and I believe in race. Care to explain how saliva can show to us where a person is descended from? Or how through DNA they can figure the ethnicity/race of a potential suspect?

      The welfare state is simply how the socialist atheist Marxist (yes it's a mouthful) are able to farm for themselves generation of voters from low IQ countries like Africa and the ME to vote for them. Also you have to deal with the bulk of studies that show Africans have a lower IQ than whites even when its adjusted for income and wealth.

      Delete
    5. covenant31

      "I think it has to do with the Jews generally holding to a lot of power in the US."

      Various groups hold a lot of power in the US.

      "Pushing for degeneracy, communism and atheism."

      This isn't limited to Jews.

      "I however don't paint all Jews like that."

      You just did.

      "As an ethnic group they have higher IQ than Europeans and Eastern Asians so naturally their intelligence allowed them to succeed."

      At best, that's Ashkenazi Jews, not Sephardic, etc.

      Also, Ashkenazi Jews could be (historically) classified as Europeans.

      The value of IQs in measuring intelligence let alone predicting "success" is debatable.

      Similarly we could debate certain racial and ethnic definitions.

      "Add into that their nepotism they climbed the ranks pretty quickly."

      Nepotism isn't limited to Jews.

      "In Eastern Europe Jews were major players in the communist movement and were against Christians. Look at the Bavarian socialist revolution."

      What about Russians and other Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe who were also "major players in the communist movement"?

      What makes you think their Jewish-ness was the primary or sole factor in this rather than, say, because many if not most Jews lived in Eastern (and Central) Europe at the time?

      "Israel to this day has a strong hand in American politics but is also a very pro-LGBT country."

      Liberal homosexual men have had "a strong hand in American politics" but are also "very pro-LGBT".

      "So there have been conservative Jews that have been a huge plus to society (i.e. Rothbard, Freidman) but they have also been a huge burden where ever they have decided to set up camp."

      How have "conservative Jews" (or do you mean Jews in general) "been a huge burden where ever" they have lived?

      One could say that about radical Muslims.

      "Even today most leftist drivel is pushed by Jewish people."

      Source?

      "Of course this can interpreted that I'm an anti-semite. However I am stating the obvious."

      At this point, I'd suppose you're too heavily invested in Stefan Molyneux, modern day "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" type fare, and the like.

      "Whenever a European country advocates for border protection, sovereignty and shows a desire to retain its ethnic integrity it's usually a Jew criticizing them for being Nazis."

      You'll have to provide specific examples rather than make blanket accusations like this.

      "My questions for you Steve are why should I as a Christian care much about Israel?"

      That's like asking why should you as a Christian care much about any other particular nation (e.g. UK, France). So much depends on what you mean exactly.

      "How does ethnic Israel tie in with reformed (assuming you're amil or postmil) eschatology?"

      Some Jews will be saved in the end, just like some Gentiles will be saved in the end.

      For starters, check out the history of Reformed Christians evangelizing Jewish communities.

      "How should a Christian feel/act towards Israel (i.e. voting for more foreign aid)?"

      Israel is arguably the lone Western democratic gov't in the Mideast. Others like Iraq aren't yet stable.

      Israel is literally on the front lines fighting against Islamic terrorism - and worse things to come - with their hands tied behind their backs, no less.

      Stuff like this should count for something.

      Delete
    6. As mentioned above, socailism & Marxism were entrenched long before the immigrant influx; ie voted in by post-WWII whites.

      You confuse common DNA with race; ie distinct genetic populations are one thing, and the social construct of race (to which you seem to adhere to) is another.

      Credit the Gospel with its social consequences; Europe prior to its Christianization was no better than many Third World countries, whiteness notwithstanding. Credit Europeans with Higher Criticsim etc which has de-Christianised Europe such that African churches are calling the apostates out.

      Delete
    7. "Credit the Gospel with its social consequences; Europe prior to its Christianization was no better than many Third World countries, whiteness notwithstanding. Credit Europeans with Higher Criticsim etc which has de-Christianised Europe such that African churches are calling the apostates out."

      This is why people like Covenant31 really are racist, albeit of the less vicious variety. Their reading of the facts and history is prejudicial and myopic.

      Delete
    8. " You just did."
      Maybe it was the use of the definite article. Some Jews.

      "At best, that's Ashkenazi Jews, not Sephardic, etc."

      Correct. I failed to specify that.

      "Nepotism isn't limited to Jews."
      Why does criticism of Jews evoke such a rash response. Of course it's not limited to them. Look at Asians. Jeez.

      "What about Russians and other Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe who were also "major players in the communist movement"?
      The point was they were a minority in the general population but had a significant presence in the communist movements.

      "How have "conservative Jews" (or do you mean Jews in general) "been a huge burden where ever" they have lived?
      I am referring to the liberal Jews.

      "Source?"
      Look at the authors of most articles pushing some liberal fad. They tend to be Jewish.

      "At this point, I'd suppose you're too heavily invested in Stefan Molyneux, modern day "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" type fare, and the like."
      That's not an argument (pun intended). I can't blame you for seeing my a Nazi since you have been through many years of indoctrination. I am however offering a critique of the Jews. Not trying venting my hate. I don't hate them. Oy gevalt.

      "You'll have to provide specific examples rather than make blanket accusations like this."

      http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/jewish-australian-mp-bring-israels-african-immigrants-to-australia/
      http://newobserveronline.com/racist-jewish-hypocrites-start-shipping-african-refugees-from-israel-to-sweden/
      http://newobserveronline.com/us-jews-want-muslim-refugees-but-not-in-israel/
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jl-OJJVAEg

      "That's like asking why should you as a Christian care much about any other particular nation (e.g. UK, France). So much depends on what you mean exactly."
      I notice a hint of Zionism in Steve's writing. Maybe I am missing something regarding Israel (which one day I would like to visit)

      "Israel is literally on the front lines fighting against Islamic terrorism - and worse things to come - with their hands tied behind their backs, no less."
      No doubt about it. I applaud them for that.

      Delete
    9. There is no zionism is Steve's post, as he's not arguing for any "right of return;" you probably see zionists under your bed. Proof? Your use of The Occidental Observer is interesting, as per Wikipedia:

      "The Occidental Observer is a far right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective. Its mission statement is to 'present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West.' The publication was founded because, 'overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority.'[2] It is run by the Charles Martel Society.[3][4]

      "Kevin B. MacDonald (now-retired American professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), best known for his use of evolutionary theory to analyze Judaism as a 'group evolutionary strategy'[5]) is the editor of the publication.[2]"

      Heres'a story in The New Observer under the headline "Patriots rally in Athens and Budapest:"

      "Greek and Hungarian patriots gathered in their hundreds in Athens and Budapest today as part of the official European-wide anti-invasion rallies in honor of French nationalist Dominique Venner.

      "Although the rallies in Greece and Hungary were not as a large as their sister rallies today in Rome and Madrid, the message was the same: Europe for the Europeans, and 'no' to the nonwhite invasion (http://newobserveronline.com/patriots-rally-athens-budapest/.

      Dude, you're a white supremacist and hence a racist; you're known by the company you keep. You and your ilk disgrace both Christ and Christianity by causing needless offense, and your beliefs are incompatible with your Christian profession. Repent and believe the Gospel.


      Delete
    10. covenant31

      "Maybe it was the use of the definite article. Some Jews."

      If you meant to say some Jews, then say some Jews, not "the Jews".

      By the way, this is far from the first time you've been less than clear in what you write. You have a bad habit of making sloppy statements.

      "Why does criticism of Jews evoke such a rash response."

      I wasn't rash. I just made a factual statement. Why are you so rash to read it as a rash statement?

      "Of course it's not limited to them. Look at Asians. Jeez."

      Do you really mean Asians in general or do you in fact just mean "some Asians"?

      You sure do generalize a lot.

      Nepotism isn't limited to any race or ethnicity. No idea why you're attempting to make it about a particular racial or ethnic group, viz. Jews and Asians.

      "The point was they were a minority in the general population but had a significant presence in the communist movements."

      The point is you missed my point. Try re-reading what I said.

      "I am referring to the liberal Jews."

      Why not liberals in general then? Why do you make it about Jews in particular?

      "Look at the authors of most articles pushing some liberal fad. They tend to be Jewish."

      For one thing, "authors" are not the only group "pushing" "most leftist drivel". Authors aren't necessarily even the most influential group doing so. There are also politicians, educators, scientists, celebrities, etc. Yet I don't see you singling out other groups for "pushing" "most leftist drivel". No, you specify Jews.

      "That's not an argument"

      That's not a problem (for me). Since it was never meant to be an argument.

      What is a problem (for you) is your inability to follow your own "logic" (limited though it may be). You denied you were an anti-Semite. I replied I'd suppose it's rather because (despite your protestations to the contrary) you've bought into people like Stefan Molyneux who have made remarks about Jewish people sympathetic to anti-Semites.

      "(pun intended)."

      Rather, pun overextended.

      "I can't blame you for seeing my a Nazi"

      Are you trying to say "I can't blame you for seeing me a Nazi"? Or something else?

      Of course, if so, I never said you were a Nazi. You're reading too much into what I said. Perhaps this tells us more about you than anyone else.

      "since you have been through many years of indoctrination."

      Ironically, you're the Stefan Molyneux fanboy, aren't you?

      "I am however offering a critique of the Jews. Not trying venting my hate. I don't hate them. Oy gevalt."

      I never claimed you "hate them".

      Maybe you're ambivalent about "the Jews".

      "http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/jewish-australian-mp-bring-israels-african-immigrants-to-australia/
      http://newobserveronline.com/racist-jewish-hypocrites-start-shipping-african-refugees-from-israel-to-sweden/
      http://newobserveronline.com/us-jews-want-muslim-refugees-but-not-in-israel/
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jl-OJJVAEg"

      Much to say about all these "sources". I'll just say for now this undercuts your point that "most leftist drivel" is published by Jews inasmuch as Jews didn't write these articles and many more like them.

      "I notice a hint of Zionism in Steve's writing"

      You'll have to be specific and spell out what you mean rather than bandying around vague and borderline passive aggressive statements.

      Delete
    11. "Your use of The Occidental Observer is interesting, as per Wikipedia:"
      Again I despise the far right. I just posted them because what I found. It shouldn't really matter.

      ""Kevin B. MacDonald (now-retired American professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), best known for his use of evolutionary theory to analyze Judaism as a 'group evolutionary strategy'[5]) is the editor of the publication.[2]"
      You haven't refuted his lifes work.

      "Dude, you're a white supremacist and hence a racist; you're known by the company you keep. You and your ilk disgrace both Christ and Christianity by causing needless offense, and your beliefs are incompatible with your Christian profession. Repent and believe the Gospel."
      How do you figure? I disgrace Christianity by liking my heritage and bearing no hate towards any other group. You are a cuck.

      No I'll stick to the gospel of Jesus Christ not the false gospel of cultural Marxism and liberalism.

      " If you meant to say some Jews, then say some Jews, not "the Jews". "
      "Do you really mean Asians in general or do you in fact just mean "some Asians"?

      You sure do generalize a lot.

      Nepotism isn't limited to any race or ethnicity. No idea why you're attempting to make it about a particular racial or ethnic group, viz. Jews and Asians."

      Why do you labor the point so much? I think you know too well what I meant. Jews have a high IQ and through both their intelligence and nepotism achieved a lot. I APPLAUD them for it. They are a successful bunch.

      "The point is you missed my point. Try re-reading what I said."
      That was my point. Maybe I could be wrong but a lot of prominent figures in the socialist/Marxist world have been Jews (Marx included).

      "you've bought into people like Stefan Molyneux who have made remarks about Jewish people sympathetic to anti-Semites."
      Have you watched his material? He is an anarcho-capitalist atheist. I disagree with him on both those things right off the bat. But the thing is I can still absorb information from them even if his views dont exactly mirror mine. Also Molyneux is Jewish himself.

      "Rather, pun overextended."
      You don't get it(facepalm).

      "Ironically, you're the Stefan Molyneux fanboy, aren't you?"
      Is this how you go about refuting someone.

      "Much to say about all these "sources". I'll just say for now this undercuts your point that "most leftist drivel" is published by Jews inasmuch as Jews didn't write these articles and many more like them. "
      Again. I just posted these sources because there the ones I could find. Did you care to read them? Because they cite the actual articles. That's what I cared about.

      "You'll have to be specific and spell out what you mean rather than bandying around vague and borderline passive aggressive statements."
      He seems to speak very favorably of them.








      Delete
    12. "This is why people like Covenant31 really are racist, albeit of the less vicious variety. Their reading of the facts and history is prejudicial and myopic."
      I guess its because of the information I have red. But there are two issues at play here.

      First anyone who brings up race/IQ, ethnic pride, criticism of Jews is instantly equated with racist. Which if thats the case then I suppose I am.

      However what I ask is that being a Protestant who holds to firmly sola scriptura, how are my beliefs unbiblical/sinful?

      To set it straight;

      - I like my European heritage
      - I believe Europeans have contributed more to society than most other races
      - I don't hate any other race
      - I recognize were'll made in the image of God
      - Multiculturalism is a failure
      - I affirm the existence of distinct genetic populations/races whatever

      If this makes me a Nazi, even if I am theonomist state, if I believe in limited government, if I believe people should be allowed to inter-marry (races) then sure. I guess its just the conditioning at work.

      Delete
    13. Sources matter; it's a credibility thing. When you quote known racist sources to make a racist point, you show yourself to be a racist. You walk like a duck and quack like a duck, so you're a duck. What's next: The Spotlight? Stormfront? If all you can find to support your quackery is far-right sources, and you claim to despise the far right, you may wish to reconsider your position.



      As far as your remarks about conditioning, you are just conditioned by racist and pseudointellectual media. Your baseless accusations about me being a thrall of libtards is mere ego masturbation, as neither I nor RWH have ginve any indication that we hold to Liberalism or support multiculturalism. From my first answer to you: "Calling for immigrants to respect societal norms, language competence, a good work ethic, and lawful behavior in their host nations is another thing entirely." Show me the multiculturalism, please.

      Your use of Protestant buzzwords reeks of insincerity given your behaviour; show me anything resembling your racial/cultural views in Scripture, and then you might have a point. My guess is you misunderstand the prophecy of Japeth dwelling in the tents of Shem, as you seem oblivious to the fact that Europe was a dunghill prior to its Christianization. Any noteworthy European contribution to the world was due to Gospel influence rather than whiteness or DNA, which is why Europe is returning to its dunghill status by declaring war against Christianity. God doesn't give a rip about ethnicity, so why do you?

      YOur race/IQ fixation is pseudoscience, as those Ashenazim you (falsely) praise were considered a threat to America's collective intelligence due to their low IQ test scores in the early 20th century; the same fearmongering was used regarding Italian immigrants. Try reading a real intellectual like Thomas Sowell; then again, he also might be a Marxist thrall.

      Delete
    14. My point with those articles was to prove that some Jews are hypocritical. The overall contention of my post was to explain that some of the hatred of Jews as much as it was scapegoating them. People being much more religious back then it was easy to play on the Christ-killer mentality.

      The articles cited other articles. Where Jewish authors criticize European countries for not wanting 3rd world immigrants and advocate multiculturalism. That's final.

      As far as my conditioning goes I again will have to remind I hate no one but I don't think this is getting through to you.

      "Any noteworthy European contribution to the world was due to Gospel influence rather than whiteness or DNA, which is why Europe is returning to its dunghill status by declaring war against Christianity. God doesn't give a rip about ethnicity, so why do you?"

      This is interesting. I will think about this. Of course God doesn't care about ethnicity he even said he choose Israel because of his own pleasing.

      "YOur race/IQ fixation is pseudoscience, as those Ashenazim you (falsely) praise were considered a threat to America's collective intelligence due to their low IQ test scores in the early 20th century; the same fearmongering was used regarding Italian immigrants."
      Do you wonder why I call you a liberal?

      I apologize for any misunderstanding. I wrote what I thought with sincerity. I didn't want to provoke anyone.

      Delete
    15. "...some Jews are hypocrfitical"
      Big deal; no ethnicity has cornered thy hypocrisy market.

      "Where Jewish authors criticize European countries for not wanting 3rd world immigrants and advocate multiculturalism."

      Are those Jews opposing border policies in the name of multiculturalism, or do they oppose the same herrenvolkmentality which kept them out of NOrway and behind the Russian Pale of Settlement?

      "This is interesting. I will think about this.
      Please do; Christ matters more than chromosomes.

      "Do you wonder why I call you a liberal?"

      Yes, because I never advocatged for liberalism. Not falling for race-based IQ quackery is not a mark of a liberal, but rather a mark of intellectual sobriety. Any libertarian or conservative whose political views is influence by sola et tota Scriptura would advocate not multiculturalism per se, but a colorblind church made up of all nations - including Jews - living by the Gospel and so salting the earth. It is this Gospel influence which enable Europe to emerge from its pagan dunghill status to displace Islamified Afro-Asia as the center of Christian civilization and achieve technological brilliance. However, one such libertarian or conservative would also know that the dechristianization of Europe means its de-civilization; if you're the theonomist you say you are, you must have encountered the writings of Rushdoony, who says about the same. So again, either show me the liberalism or drop the charge; ie put up or shut up.

      "I apologize for any misunderstanding. I wrote what I thought with sincerity. I didn't want to provoke anyone."

      There is no misunderstanding - on my part, that is - I get you completely. Fallacy of intention. You did; so don't.




      "Of course God doesn't care about ethnicity he even said he choose Israel because of his own pleasing."

      I shouldn't have to remind a Reformed theonomist that God does what he does for his own glory.




      Delete
    16. Several good points by Kirk Skeptic in response to covenant31.

      At best, covenant31 is double-minded toward the Jews. Half the time he doesn't know what he's saying. He makes statements which he later has to walk back or otherwise amend or add qualifiers or the like. He can't keep track of his own statements.

      In short, if what covenant31 says seems confused, it's because covenant31 is confused.

      Delete
  3. My hunch is that early Christians remembered the previous Jewish persecutions of Christians. And instead of responding as Jesus commanded (bless, do not curse), Christians held a grudge.

    On the flip side, I remember mentioning to my Orthodox Jewish friend about Jewish persecution of early Christianity (granted, not as aggressive as Roman persecution) and he was completely unaware that that was a thing.

    Everyone remembers how they were wronged and skips over the parts where their group did some bad things.

    ReplyDelete