|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is anti semitism alive and well in the church?
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Where do I say they are excluded? The New Covenant is open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
Again, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. How do you think the Old Covenant worked, and in what way is it still operative?
Are you saying that being an ethnic Jew automatically gives one certain favours with God that makes accepting the Messiah superfluous?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Thanks for that leo. I now have a mental image of Keith Flint confronting the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel to the sound of 'Firestarter'.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kempis3
Shipmate
# 9792
|
Posted
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame.
The BBC series on the History of Christianity is excellent, and one small part of this confronted this difficult concern. About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
--------------------
Man plots -- God laughs.
Posts: 148 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The previous rc archbishop of Paris - Cardinal Jean-Marie (Aaron) Lustiger was Jewish of Polish origin.He became a Christian during or just after WW2. He never denied his Jewishness,though as a Christian of a Jewish mother ,he was not always welcomed by other Jews.
Forthview,
yes and a number of RC clergy were / are Jewish. I am not sure the figures for the C of E but I certainly know at least 2 or 3 Vicars who are/ were Jewish.
In terms of ''conversion'' this is a hot topic. But suffice it to mention that nearly all the early Church were Jewish, Paul himself being a well educated man, after his Damascus Road experience became the Jewish evangelist to the gentiles and the faith spread extremely quickly.
Today in Israel and across the world there are growing numbers of Jewish people who accept Jesus as their Messian (Christ). Some of these folk keep certain Jewish traditions, some do not. But whilst the figures of Jewish people converting to Christianity are not huge , there are more and more. Indeed the Jewish community has expressed concerns about this phenomenon.
Anti semitism in the church alive today in the church? Well I think it is in some quarters. But IMO it is a lot less than it was. But then again the casual racism of say 40 years ago is not usually tolerated; often balck people were referred to in very derogatory terms as were other minorities etc etc including Jewish people.
But the stereotypes and evil lies still persist (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being one example which was belived by the gullible).
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
But the stereotypes and evil lies still persist (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being one example which was belived by the gullible).
This seems to provide evidence that the Protocols are being routinely used in the Arab world.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame.
The BBC series on the History of Christianity is excellent, and one small part of this confronted this difficult concern. About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
Kempis,
yes an excellent series. I think even if one disagrees with him on some things, this has been a tour de force.
Thanks for the link
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame...About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
kempis3
Shipmate
# 9792
|
Posted
Yerevan
I gave evidence from my own experience above at 10 Dec 0815.
And the above link to the BBC series History of Christianity gives other evidence.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Man plots -- God laughs.
Posts: 148 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Ever read any post-holocaust theology? I wouldn't say it's OTT at all, yet it would make the same claim and point to the holocaust as a catalyst for response and action. Ten years ago it was a very minor field, but it's influence is growing all the time and today it's a major part of theological reflection.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Anti-semitism has very deep roots in Christianity, going back to the New Testament itself. Matthew's "blood libel" (27.25), and the things Jesus and the disciples did "for fear of the Jews" in John hark back to the bitter split between Judaism and Christianity which occurred at the time of the Jewish uprising of 66AD, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70. Many "great" Christians such as John "The Golden Mouthed" Chrysostom, were foul-mouthed when it came to Jews. Luther wanted to burn the synagogues, destroy Jewish books, ban rabbis from preaching on pain of death and round up the Jews to keep them away from good Christian people (concentration camps?). Inquisitions, pogroms and the like cast a baneful shadow over Christian history.
Yet it wasn't all one sided. The Jews first banned Christians from the synagogues at the Council of Jamnia (Javneh) in 90AD. The Talmuds are full of anti-Christian polemic, even suggesting that Jesus "ben Pantera" was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. The rabbis rewrote Judaism in opposition to Christianity, airbrushing out of their history things like the Wisdom and Enoch traditions which were Scripture both to the early Church and to the Qumrum community, because important ideas such as the Messiah as a quasi divine figure appear therin. The medieval Jewish sages such as Maimonides condemn Christins as idolators. Where the Jews lost out was in the numbers game, Christians were far more numerous, and had the powerful Roman state and later the Catholic Church to enforce their anti-Jewish hatred. But the hatred itself was as powerful on both sides.
Generally, the Jews preferred the relative security of the Caliphates of North Africa, where they were overtaxed, but often left alone. To root anti-semitism out of the Church is near impossible in a religion whose Scripture is full of it and whose teaching is that Christ is the only way to God. There are two surviving descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time. One is Christianity and the other, rabbinic Judaism. They are largely defined against each other. I don't see why a Jew of today, has any reason to feel that his covenant with God has been in any way changed or abrogated. He can, in good faith, claim a lineage back to Abraham.
Yet it would be a mistake for today's Jews to regard their faith as entirely consistent with the faith of Moses. In the Babylonian exile, the purges of Josiah and the post 70AD reconstruction, Judaism was radically reinvented. Much of the high priestly belief such as the Angel of God eternally begotten in the Holy of Holies, and the meaning of sacrifice were preserved in Christianity, but lost in Judaism. In am indebted to the Temple Theology books of Margaret Barker for an understanding of this point.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
Yerevan
I gave evidence from my own experience above at 10 Dec 0815.
And the above link to the BBC series History of Christianity gives other evidence.
No you didn't. You supplied an anecdote about your home church, which is only one of I don't how many thousands in the UK. I've never heard anything like that from the pulpit of any church and I've lived and travelled all over the place and worshipped regularly in churches of three different traditions (Catholic, Baptist and Methodist). Maybe you just need to find a new church? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Ever read any post-holocaust theology? I wouldn't say it's OTT at all, yet it would make the same claim and point to the holocaust as a catalyst for response and action. Ten years ago it was a very minor field, but it's influence is growing all the time and today it's a major part of theological reflection.
Yes, but we're talking about the contemporary, post-Holocaust church. The very fact that post-Holocaust theology is influential would seem tp undermine the argument that the contemporary church is riddled with anti-Semitism. Over the past few decades we've seen the rise of inter-faith dialogue with Jews, a widespread feeling that Jews should not be evangelised, a strong Christian Zionist movement in the US and widespread repentance of wrongs done to the Jewish community in the past. The Roman Catholic Church's attitude has been transformed in the past century for example. If I'm reading him (her?) right, Kempis seems to be saying that church now is about as anti-Semitic as the church ten centuries ago.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I wonder if an attitude of reluctance to admit the institutional anti-semitism on the past may not sometimes be an indication of incipient - or recidivist - anti-semitism just under the skin right now?
After all, a virulent Holocaust-denier is universally - I think - seen as a virulent anti-semite. Perhaps it's all a matter of degree.
[ 11. December 2009, 14:44: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Where do I say they are excluded? The New Covenant is open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
Again, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. How do you think the Old Covenant worked, and in what way is it still operative?
Are you saying that being an ethnic Jew automatically gives one certain favours with God that makes accepting the Messiah superfluous?
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Damage? What damage? Don't the "New Perspective" people reckon he was important in seeing Paul as Jewish and Pauline theology as a continuation of Judaism?
Yes, partly. However, Daniel Boyarin and others have had to redo his work because of its supercessionism.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As for recruiting St. Paul to the cause of not preaching the Gospel to the Jewish people because they have their own Covenant - well, that's just weird...
No it isn't. Paul gradually worked out his stance on Judaism and he shouldn't all be quoted in a flat way.
I didn't quote him - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
Most importantly, Paul did not think he was trying to convert people out of Judaism into some new religion later called Christianity.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
Unfortunately, from certain perspectives, the old covenant does include some clear promises to the people of Israel about their ownership of the land. These clearly indicate that the land is given to them for ever - which implies that the Palestinians currently in residence are squatters, with no right to the land.
If it is not right for us to act in judgement upon people in other contexts - such as executing adulterers - then it is not right for us to act to fulfil God's judgement by preventing the Jews from reoccupying their land, as this is the only justification for them NOT being in occupation of their land... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I didn't quote [St Paul] - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
You can't be serious here, surely?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most importantly, Paul did not think he was trying to convert people out of Judaism into some new religion later called Christianity.
a) Only in the sense that Paul preaches that Christ is the long-desired fulfillment of the old covenant. You misleadingly speak as if Paul says Christ's an optional extra really for the Gentiles, whom Jews can ignore and carry on with the old covenant!
b) Paul explicitly stresses (in ch. 10) the need to preach Christ to the Jews.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Unfortunately, from certain perspectives, the old covenant does include some clear promises to the people of Israel about their ownership of the land. These clearly indicate that the land is given to them for ever - which implies that the Palestinians currently in residence are squatters, with no right to the land.
Apparently (I have not read it yet), according to
this book, most Palestinians are the descendants of Jews who converted to Islam, so does that mean they are no longer Abraham's seed?
When Arabs conquered lands, they did not commit genocide, the conquered population remained but it was often politically and/or economically expedient for them to convert to Islam.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
That doesn't answer any of my questions at all. If you're going to accuse me of anti-Semitism, it might be polite to substantiate your comments.
Let's go back to the Old Testament. I can see three stages in the Old Covenant:
a. That Abraham and his descendents would inherit the whole country of Canaan. (Genesis 12:1-9)
b. On Sinai: keep the commandments and be blessed; break them and be cursed. (Deuteronomy 11:26-32)
c. That the Messiah would come (various prophets).
Now c. has been fulfilled in Christ, and the whole point of Romans is that it is not possible to keep the Law, and therefore the grace of Christ is necessary for salvation. So in what way do you see the Old Covenant as still active independent of Christianity? That Abraham's descendents have the God-given right to the land of Canaan?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Back to the OP: The Council of Christians and Jews did a study (based on 1,646 respondents and written up in Common Ground, Winter 2009) of levels of antisemitism in anglican churches. The overwhelming conclusion that nearly all of it is unconscious - based on sermons and hymns that people have imbibed fairly uncritically during their lives.
Older Anglicans tended to express the least tolerant attitudes to the Jews compared with younger.
More traditional and liberal Anglicans showed the most sensitivity and understanding towards Jew, compared with evangelicals.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I didn't quote [St Paul] - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
You can't be serious here, surely?
On Paul's inconsistency, I only have time for a few notes:
Sanders claims that Paul’s statement in Rom 2:27 that gentiles obey the Law and will judge Jews is not hypothetical, nor does it refer to gentile believers. Thus, Sanders concludes that Paul contradicts himself insofar as he allows for the possibility that a human being can be declared righteous by obedience to the Law. This theological inconsistency was the result of Paul’s careless use of traditional synagogue material that was at variance with his own theological views (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 123-35).
Similarly, H. Räisänen argues that Paul inconsistently says in Rom 2:14-15, 26-27 that gentiles can keep the Law and thereby make themselves righteous (Paul and the Law [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 101-109).
Romans 9-11 may be compared to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. It seems that in the latter there is a somewhat pessimistic picture of events due to take place before Christ's return - life will get more difficult, a rebellion will take place and a 'lawless one' will be revealed (v. 2) who will engage in various wicked acts and deceptions (w. 9-10) before Christ destroys him (v. 8).
However, in Romans 9-11, there is a rather more optimistic picture of events before the parousia. There is a positive view of the number of people to receive salvation, and in particular Israel's rejection of her Messiah is not final, and indeed 'all Israel will be saved' (11:26).
in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, Paul expected the parousia to come quickly, so quickly that it would take place before his death. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-1 7, Paul twice uses the expression, 'We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord', which may be taken to mean 'we Christians who survive until the parousia'. A similar idea may be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:51f., where the 'we' that is emphasised in verse 52b ('we shall be changed') indicates that Paul placed himself among the survivors at the parousia.
However, in Paul's later epistles, it seems that he no longer expected to be alive at the second coming of Christ, but rather to die before it took place. Verses such as 2 Corinthians 4:12 ('death is at work in us, but life in you'), 5:1, 8 ('we know that if the earthly building we live in is destroyed ... we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord') are said to reflect this way of thinking, as well as Philippians 1:21, 23, where Paul speaks of dying as 'gain' and of his desire to 'depart and be with Christ which is far better'. So now the apostle considers death before the parousia to be a real possibility, a perspective he did not seem to have prior to 2 Corinthians, and he now thinks that the parousia will no longer take place in the proximate future.
in 1 Corinthians 15, it is clear that believers do not receive their resurrection bodies until Christ returns - see verses 22-26 (the order of the resurrection of the dead taking place is first Christ, then at his coming, those who belong to Christ - verse 23), and 5 1-52 (the dead will be raised imperishable at the last trumpet, i.e. at Christ's coming, and then receive the resurrection body) - compare also 1 Thessalonians 4:14ff.
However, in 2 Corinthians 5, verse 1 seems to say that it is at the moment of death that the heavenly body is received - there is no gap between death and the parousia during which the believer is disembodied. It is only by receiving the resurrection body at death that this state of nakedness will be avoided (v. 3). So for the individual Christian, it is at death that they will receive the building that God has provided, as soon as the present physical body is destroyed.
In his earlier epistles, Paul seems to have described this state as one of 'sleep', thus an unconscious intermediate state. Christ will return to raise sleeping, unconscious believers to life again. This appears to be reflected in verses such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 15 ('concerning those who have fallen asleep in Christ'); 5:10 ('whether we are awake or asleep') and 1 Corinthians 15:18, 20, 51.
However, two sets of verses in Paul's later letters seem to give rather a different picture of the apostle's view of the intermediate state: 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ('away from the body and at home with the Lord') and Philippians 1:21-23 ('to die is gain ... to depart and to be with Christ'). These verses seem to indicate that when believers die, they go immediately into the presence of Christ without there being any state of unconsciousness or 'sleep' at all.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, it seems that the parousia will come suddenly and unexpectedly - like 'a thief in the night', whereas in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, it is clear that certain events have to take place before Christ returns (the rebellion, the appearance of the lawless one, etc).
the resurrection is a future event in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 and Romans 6:4f. Colossians 3:1-4, however, seems to talk about resurrection as an event that has already taken place in the believers' lives ('you have been raised with Christ ... you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God').
in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, (written at an early stage in his Christian life), Paul has a comparatively negative view of the state, particularly the law courts and advises the Corinthians to have little to do with them (cf. vv. 1 and 2 - it is a mistake to take grievances to court before unbelievers); however, in Romans 13:1-7, representing a later stage in Paul's thinking, Paul is rather more positive in his evaluation of the state - all are to be subject to the governing authorities which have been instituted by God and are his servants - verses 1 and 4.
Campbell:Paul's inconsistency in ethical application, so that he is sometimes liberational and thus true to his gospel (as in Gal 3:28) and at other times more "rooted . . . in structures of creation than in the structures of redemption" (p. 113). When a "creation-based theology obstructs true theology" in Paul (e.g. gender codes [1 Cor 11:2-16], "unnatural" homosexual activity [1 Cor 6:9], slavery [Philemon]), the apostle's analysis "lacks theological authority," being "neither christologically derived, nor fundamentally scriptural"
In Rom 1:21, Paul speaks of pagans as knowing God, but in Gal 4:8 as not knowing him
it will be difficult to come up with a consistent "Pauline theology" if not all of Paul's letters attest to the same theology (e.g., In Gal 5.2 Paul says that circumcision is of no advantage while in Rom 3.1-2 Paul says that circumcision is of a great advantage)
the various letters by Paul do indeed betray different emphases on the law. The
critical question, however, is whether these differing emphases should be accounted for primarily by the varying circumstances Paul faced, or by substantial development in his own thinking, frequently traced across a mere five years of apostolic writing. To put the matter another way, would Paul have repudiated his epistle to the Galatians
by the time he wrote his epistle to the Romans, if he again faced the problem that had confronted him in Galatia?
the Law? (abolished in Ephesians, but not in Romans.)
Paul's flexibility extends even to the question of his submission (or lack of it!) to
Torah. Richardson essentially approves the judgment of Barrett, who writes, 'Paul was prepared to abandon [the law] alto~ether. It is mpossible to understand Paul if this fact is not grasped.' I By contrast, the situation in Gal. 2: 11-14 finds Paul in the
embarrassing position of not living up to his own stated position. In
Richardson's words: The issue, then, is this: if Paul views accommodation as a legitimate principle for himself, and if Peter in Antioch has already shown some
measure of adaptability as well, why does Paul reject so vehemently Peter's understanding of the need to adapt once more when some come from James?
Is Jesus returning soon? (1 Thess seems to say yes; 2 Thess seems to say no)
Are the leaders of the church important? (Galatians seems to disparage church leaders; 1 Tim (though probably not by Paul) teaches that bishops and deacons are important.)
Turning to Gal. 2.11-14, Richardson acknowledges a central difference between this passage and I Cor. 9.19-23. Although both passages bear on the question of table fellowship, only the Antioch episode is tied up with the place of circumcision. In Antioch the question turns not on the appropriateness of particular foods but on
the appropriateness of table fellowship with particular individuals, viz. uncircumcised Christians. Moreover, there can be in Paul's mind no question of 'weaker brothers' in the Antioch episode, since all attempts at identification of such weaker members is problematic. But quite apart from whether or not Paul 'won' in Antioch, the
difference between Paul's stated principle of conduct in I Cor. 9 and his failure to apply it to Peter in Gal. 2 is remarkable.
Richardson: Though it is incapable of proof, it may be that Paul's changed attitude
alluded to in 1.10 is a result of his changed practice referred to in 5.11. He used to urge circumcision, perhaps even as a Christian, but he views that at the time of writing Galatians as an attempt to please men. Since he has stopped that practice, because his understanding of the law in the new times after Christ has changed (2.15-4.31), he is no longer pleasing men. Thus, on the showing of Galatians, to require
circumcision is to attempt to please men. Those apostles who limit their table fellowship to circumcised brethren must be opposed as sharply as possible. No accommodation can be made.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
The previous post is like a theological treatise ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My understanding of Romans 9, 10 and 11, is simple. God still loves the jewish people. His salvation plan has in no way made them marginal from the love he has and the promises given to them.
I suspect some of the anti semitism in the church was a little like a parent who sees their recalcitrant child not doing what they want. So like Martin Luther, once Jewish people said no to Jesus Christ's justification by faith, they were 'beyond the pale' as it were, perhaps this is the origin of much Protestant anti semitism?
Catholic anti semitism seemed to focus around the jewish people as 'Christ killers' and much of the hatred seemed to stream from that theologically incorrect premise (we ALL killed Christ in one sense didn't we?).
The promises God made to the jewish people still stand IMO. By the way that also goes for the land of Israel too; I see God's prophetic destiny being worked out by the ingathering of the Jewish people (by the way that doesn't mean I see Israel through rose tinted spectacles - it does make mistakes like any sovereign nation state).
Casper
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Damage? What damage? Don't the "New Perspective" people reckon he was important in seeing Paul as Jewish and Pauline theology as a continuation of Judaism?
On W. D. Davies - Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology – C. Klein (SPCK 1978): To make clear what is meant by the ambivalent attitude only two more passages will be cited. These show that there is real struggle, even within one and the same author, to reconcile historical, objective knowledge of Pharisaism and the Gospel accounts. W. D. Davies offers such an instance. In his Invitation he does justice to the Pharisees as they appear in non-Christian sources. The Pharisees, he writes, ‘accepted as axiomatic that the divine will was revealed in the Law and that every aspect of human life is to be governed by the Law. But the Pharisees also recognized that no written document can cover every detail of life. Changing conditions demand not an immutable code but a living, adaptable one. The Pharisees, therefore, claimed that, in addition to the written Law, the Oral Law had authority. Moreover, they were in favour of adapting the Law more and more to make it relevant to their times . . . Within Judaism, the Pharisees were what we should call today “liberals”—men anxious to make religion living, vital, contemporary.”But when it comes to commenting on the Gospel itself, the attitude changes. Speaking of the healing of the man born blind (John 9), Professor Davies writes, ‘The Pharisees call good evil and evil good; they refuse to rejoice generously in the healing activity of Jesus. They consider him a commonplace fellow of unknown origin.’ In fairness one must mention that he alludes to the Church-Synagogue conflict of the late first century, the date of the editing of this Gospel. ‘John was writing at a time when the Christian Church was increasingly being estranged from the Synagogue.’
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
like Martin Luther, once Jewish people said no to Jesus Christ's justification by faith, they were 'beyond the pale' as it were, perhaps this is the origin of much Protestant anti semitism?
Interesting train of thought that might be showing unconscious theology.
For a start, Jesus did not speak of justification by faith. As for Paul, it is easy to read Luther's ideas back into Paul. That results in contrasting 'faith' and 'law' and goes on to accuse Jews of legalism and lacking in grace.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Leo said: quote:
Interesting train of thought that might be showing unconscious theology.
Leo,
do I need to go to the Doctor about this (unconscious theology)?
Saul (concerned ) the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Leo, I think Saul was probably referring to Luther's pamphlet 'On The Jew's And Their Lies' which was reprinted twice by Hitler as propaganda for his 'cause'. In it he exhorts Christians and Christian rulers that when they come across Jews they are to act like a good doctor when they notice poisoned flesh, and cut it, saw it out and then burn it. He also recommends the burning of synagogue's
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
[ 13. December 2009, 20:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
My understanding is that Pauls' heart and passion was clearly to preach the gospel to all men and women, including his own Jewish people. Without going into Pauline theology, there is much to back such a view. Indeed there were a sizeable % of the Jewish race who did in fact accept the claims of Jesus as Messiah/ Christ, in the early years after Christ's death/ ressurection etc.
I understand that over the next few hundred years the church came to be predominantly gentile and in certain cases quite hostile to the very race that had helped spread the gospel of Jesus Christ so effectively and faithfully.
Saul.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
He was mainly concerned with preaching to the Gentiles and with not wanting interference with Jewish converts who wanted Gentiles to keep Torah.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Was it not the case that the Gentiles were in fact the 'converts'?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
He was mainly concerned with preaching to the Gentiles and with not wanting interference with Jewish converts who wanted Gentiles to keep Torah.
Was it not the case that some Jews were hellenised jews or jews of mixed marriages (like Timothy as an example)? The main threat was that some Jewish folk wanted the new gentile believers to follow the law completely as a Jewish person would? This could have made Christianity a jewish sect?
The way I read it is that Paul is an Apostle of freedom; if you want to keep the law (if you've been raised with it etc.) fine, if not don't get bogged down with it all, as you'll come under the dead hand of legalism. Not to say that the law per se is wrong, but as today the Rabbinic interpretations veered towards a dead legalism.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
