Townhall.com | Matt Barber | June 22, 2007
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed “same-sex marriage” on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man “marrying” a man or a woman “marrying” a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court’s seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural “gay-marriage” Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — made Massachusetts the only state to recognize “same-sex marriage” by miraculously divining that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this court forced insanity.
. . . more
Hey, Missourian. I have a DVD of the Egyptian scholar’s lecture on the Orthodox Response to Islam I’d like to send you. If you give Fr. Hans as shipping address I’ll send it to you.
Note 47, evidence of the misery generated by sexual immorality is all around us
Dean, have you seen the studies and reports that show
a) a vast increase in the variety and number of venereal diseases
b) the disturbing number of young women who lose their fertility
without even knowing it due to venereal diseases which
have no overt symptoms
c) the growing number of children growing up without a father.
d) the high divorce rate
e) the custom of current college students to avoid even boyfriend-girlfriend
relationships and simply engage in ‘hook-ups”
f) the psychological damage done to young people as they lose the
ability to trust and love after one meaningless affair after another
g) the tremendous distrust and growing mutual dislike between the
sexes
h) the acceptance of the idea that relationships between the sexes
are so frought with peril that it has to be heavily regulated
in the workplace and schools
i) the growing unwillingness of young American men to marry and
assume the role of a father in a stable family. I don’t know about
you, but I never considered my father to be expendable. His
absence would have been devastating.
This is what the “sexual revoluation” of the 60’s has wrought: misery, unhappiness, broken families, children without the example of a good Father. Was it worth it? Was some fleeting, meaningless sexual gratification with a person who disappears the next day worth the price we paid. As the 60’s song goes, “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
Do you think people who put pure sexual gratification first are equipped to whether the storms of a long marriage and prevail through the difficult times?
I don’t think so.
I have known quite a few people who were mired in the homosexual life style and believe me they weren’t happy and contented, they were tortured, even when they lived in “tolerant” communities where they could be openly gay without any adverse impact. There is no lasting happiness there.
Tom C writes: “I’m sorry, but this post is preposterous – a fog of unrelated facts and specious reasoning.”
Have you read any of Jacob Neusner’s books on the talmud? I have. (He is such a prolific author that it is difficult to read them all, especially for a non-Jew. I have not read them all, and my knowledge of classical Hebrew has sadly deteriorated over the years, and my knowledge of Aramaic is virtually non-existent.) From the Jewish side, Neusner is the real deal. You want to talk about the “judeo-christian tradition?” Your argument is not with me, but him. Good luck. You’re a canoe. He’s an aircraft carrier. Figure out who will win.
While we’re at it, have you read the gospel of Matthew, the other gospels, and the rest of the New Testament? Jesus and the early Christians utterly rejected the Pharisaical view of religion. (E.g., the apostle Paul.) But this is the very foundation of modern Judaism.
Tom C: “Jews and Christians have more in common with each other – especially in terms of what constitutes societal norms – than they do with Muslims or Hindus. That’s what Judeo-Christian refers to. To suggest that it is meant to imply that Jews and Christians agree on everything and are “one big happy family” is mistaken.”
Sure, Christians and Jews have more in common than Christians and Muslims or Hindus. But to describe that as a common tradition is extremely misleading, and is in fact utterly rejected by many Jews. Christians and Taoists have more in common than Christians and Satanists, but we don’t talk about the “Taoist-Christian tradition.” I’m just saying — like Neusner — that the “judeo-christian heritage” is largely a modern political construct.
Christopher writes: “Bah! The Troll strikes again. “Judeo-Christian tradition” is a perfectly serviceable if inexact idea. It is secularists, modernists, and ‘Death Eaters’ like Jim who want to divide those who do have a common moral tradition…”
Yes, I was hoping that Christopher would chime in with his usual personal attack. Tell you what. You go study Hebrew and Aramaic, spend maybe five or ten years studying Jewish theology and talmud, and then tell us that the esteemed Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Of course, you wouldn’t do that, preferring instead to hold forth about subjects about which you know nothing. Great example of a Christian. Makes me want to be an ignorant troll like you. Not.
Note 47, Michael
I don’t think that Dean believes that the Church is right on the issue of homosexual conduct. I don’t think that he trusts that God’s law leads to His childrens’ happiness or greater good. Of course, even Christians who obey the Church’s teaching on sexual morality are beset with trials and troubles from time to time, but, they also enjoy a deeper, more constant and truer love within their marriages and families.
I believe we are happiest when we follow the teaching, even with the trials, and that there is no true happiness outside of the Church’s teaching. As many difficulties as my parents faced during 49 years of marriage, they could still at the end of that time fully and enthusiastically declare their love for each other. This kind of love doesn’t exist, IMHO, outside God’s laws.
Note 52,
When you write
…you are responding to a post about the church’s teachings on homosexuality, so it seems reasonable to infer that you are equating “homosexuals” with “people who put pure sexual gratification first.”
You also mention that “there is no lasting happiness” in the homosexual lifestyle.
So, should homosexuals become celibate, or force themselves to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children with them? Which is the better example of “not putting pure sexual gratification first?”
I realize this view is generally not shared by the RCC or the Orthodox
Exactly. The title of this site is “OrthodoxyToday”. Not “HeresyToday”. Jim’s point is not to deconstruct an erroneous “fundamentalist” usage of “Judeo-Christian” but to spread hard left propaganda, thus the Trollish post…
Dean, your’re cazy! There is NOTHING harsh in the Orthodox approach to human sexuality, homosexuality included.
No, he is simply not Orthodox. He may represent himself as Orthodox, but his philosophy reveals him not to be. Let’s stop prentending he is…
I’m just saying — like Neusner — that the “judeo-christian heritage” is largely a modern political construct.
Right, which is part of your Trollish propaganda, NOT an attempt at discussion. Should you not be trolling at “www.ModernismToday.org”??
Missourian, I understand the premise that Scriptural interpretation is best left up to the Church (at least to those who are responsible for defining and clarifying doctrine). To be honest, I’ve read far less Orthodox apologetics than Roman Catholic (mostly online at sites like EWTN, New Advent and the Vatican). I’ve also read books by Ignatius, Augustine, etc. I’ve read a lot, actually, regardless of how naive my comments my sometimes sound. Many of these documents are rational, reasoned and often beautiful, so I respect your decision (?) to submit to these authorities.
What all these many, many documents and testimonials reflect to me is the ongoing struggle of good but imperfect men to understand the nature of God and what the implications are in terms of what He expects from us. I don’t find this to have been unchanging and static throughout history, however.
The Old Testament is primitive, no matter how cleverly its internal meanings are spun. The Church would not, at least today, suggest that a literal willingness to plunge a knife into the chest of one’s son is a supreme act of faith (as Abraham was willing to do). Instead, we say things like “Well, it’s a narrative about sacrifice” and so forth. Why? Well, because the idea of murdering one’s grown child (even for a deity) is abhorrant to most people. The Old Testament has some redeeming elements, but it’s overwhelmed by the vision of a God who literally finds women to be of less monetary value than men, who endorses slavery and polygamy and who commands the merciless slaughter of entire populations of men, women and infants.
When actions were taken in the Old Testament, they were done with particular assumptions about God’s nature. Thus, going into a village to massacre not just the soldiers but the pregnant women so that they may “wash their feet in their blood” was seen as consistent with God’s character. Not so today. Instead, our military takes great pains to minimize civilian casualties (more so than the rest of the world gives us credit for) because conscience (as well as politics) dictates that we do so. What’s changed?
What you see as having been “stable and constant” for 2000+ years I see as still being refined, albeit very slowly and cautiously. Just recently, the Roman Catholic Church jettisoned the notion of limbo (which states that unbaptised infants, being born in a state of original sin but having committed no overt sin, can still be deprived of the Beatific Vision) as false. I’m assuming they did so because they came to the conclusion that such a concept was inconsistent with their current understanding of who God is.
Does this mean that we must toss all current notions of morality? No, and that’s not what I’m suggesting.
#55: Celibacy is required of all Christians who are not married. It would be a pastoral matter if a person with a homosexual ideation decided to marry.
As the Orthodox homosexual man in another thread put it: “Celibacy is not a hard burden”.
According to the OED, the term “judeo-christian” first shows up in 1899. From the point of view of the history of religion, that’s very recent. The term was not even widely used until World War II.
I know what the term is supposed to mean, but my concern is more about how it is actually used — how it functions as a rhetorical tool. As Phil suggested in an earlier post, when people talk about the judeo-christian tradition, they often simply use that to refer to Christianity. For example, in the various controversies surrounding the Ten Commandments monuments, it is rare that Jews are clamoring to have the Ten Commandments displayed on public property. Likewise when it comes to school prayer. Thus the “judeo” piece of the phrase provides a sense of inclusiveness, even as the “juedos” themselves are not advocates for the issues that are supposedly “judeo-christian” in origin.
Recently in this thread there has been an extensive discussion about the issues of homosexuality and the scriptures. Homosexuality is mentioned only a few times in the entire Bible. On the other hand, references to the Pharisees (and other Jewish groups in the first century) are frequent. A quick check of the King James version of the Bible reveals 85 verses in which the Pharisees are mentioned, the vast majority of times in a negative sense.
In the gospels, the Pharisees are a “generation of vipers,” unable to enter the kingdom of heaven, hypocrites, “whited sepulchres,” “rejecting the counsel of God against themselves,” full of “ravening and wickedness,” and so on. Much of an entire chapter in the book of Matthew is devoted to detailing the “woes” that will come upon the Pharisees. On the other side, the Pharisees are portrayed as constantly plotting against Jesus, trying to trick him, seeking his destruction.
In other words, when the Second Person of the Trinity finally shows up, he says exactly nothing about homosexuality, but instead spends his limited time on earth denouncing in the harshest terms the the fathers and leaders of what became modern Judaism. These, by the way, are the very same people who are portrayed in the gospels as spending their days plotting against Jesus, up to and including plots against his life.
In what is to me a monumental irony, Jesus never warned anyone about homosexuality, but today homosexuality is denounced from every conservative pulpit in the country. On the other hand, the direct theological descendents of those whom Jesus routinely denounced as vipers, hypocrites, whited sepulchres, and full of ravening and wickedness, are now embraced as “people of faith,” and part of the “judeo-christian” tradition. One wonders what Jesus would think about the judeo-christian tradition. Actually, one does not wonder, because he was already very clear on the topic.
Skip ahead a few hundred years and you find that the early church fathers continued in the same attitude. A quick search on the internet revealed this piece by Eusebius, recording a letter sent by Constantine after the first Council of Nicea:
Theodoret records this in an epistle from Constantine:
This is a part of the “judeo-christian” tradition that people don’t like to talk about. But it followed logically from the gospels. (Interestingly, some of the language used by early Christians to describe Jews bears a striking resemblance to the language used by some Christians in talking about homosexuals today — defiled, blindness of soul, depraved, unrestrained passions, and so on.)
Thus the whole concept of the “judeo-christian” tradition relies on a very selective reading of history — in fact relies on an intentional omission of most of history, the early church fathers, and the very words of Jesus.
Michael and Missourian: Here is where ‘m coming from.
The Church can’t talk to people about morality until it gets them inside, sitting in the pews, and listening. I’ve been fortunate as an adult to have been exposed to excellent people in the clergy who gave powerful sermons that literally changed the way I thought about my life. Sometimes I have even wondered if God was working through them because there have been many times when their sermons have touched upon an issues that have been a cause of worry and anxiety for me personally.
My fear is that a gay person somewhere is going to think, “Those Christians, they hate me, why should I listen to them”, and turn way before they ever get to hear the sermon, or the Gospel passage, or the Epistle reading that changes, and perhaps saves, their life.
actually used — how it functions as a rhetorical tool.
Right, you want to talk about what you want to talk about, modernistic deconstructions and word games of an otherwise perfectly usable phrase like “Judeo-Christian”. Your not interested in the common moral tradition, your interested in your own modernistic boogey men. Your not interested in “OrthdoxyToday”, your interested in “MondernismToday”, which is why you are a Troll.
As Phil suggested in an earlier post, when people talk about the Judeo-Christian tradition, they often simply use that to refer to Christianity.
Phil the militant modernist and atheist (explicitly so) that Trolls here at OrthdoxyToday? That Phil? Troll’s feeding other Trolls, so sad.
In other words, when the Second Person of the Trinity finally shows up, he says exactly nothing about homosexuality, but instead spends his limited time on earth denouncing in the harshest terms the fathers and leaders of what became modern Judaism.
&
in fact relies on an intentional omission of most of history, the early church fathers, and the very words of Jesus.
Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. If you knew ANYTHING about what the Church , what He said, you would know just how ignorant you are. Our Lord spoke many, many, many times about all sorts of sins, some specifically and others not. Sin is sin. Should you not be posting this modernistic garbage on “www.JesusSeminarToday.org” and not here at OrthdoxyToday? Of course, you have been posting here for years now and have had plenty of opportunity to actually hear and understand what the Church (and not your own twisted philosophy) actually says, what Our Lord actually Says, What the Holy Trinity has actually Revealed about Himself, but your not interested in that. Your interested in Trolling, lying, and spreading modernist propaganda…
Three things: Bait & switch is unethical, immoral and illegal
Sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful and needs to be repented of
Jesus did not try to get anyone into any building. He spoke the truth to the people who needed to hear it whenever he encountered them.
Illustration: The last time I had a conversation with a homosexual was on a city bus in Wichita, Ks. He began the conversation as I recall because he saw me reading a Bible. I simply told him in a matter of fact way what the Christian understanding is. Because I treated him with respect, he listened to what I said without offense. I have no idea if he actually heard it or not, that is not my business, that is between him and God. At the time, he was a member of a local church that was predominantly homosexual.
I refuse to apologize for any of the teachings of the Church. I seek to understand them so that I can “with peace and with love give a reason for my hope”.
Further note: The gathering together to worship is for the faithful and the catechumens, not those who refuse to deny Satan and all his works, do not want to be united with Christ, do not want to repent and be cleansed so that they may receive the Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Here is where ‘m coming from. & My fear is that a gay person somewhere is going to think, “Those Christians, they hate me, why should I listen to them”
Your fear is unfounded, and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy – if you were actually Orthodox (or the least bit interested in it) you would already know this. Your not, your a secular/modernist with all the usual fears of a modernist, thus the cliche “Christian’s hate gay people”. Your posting this silly philosophy here reveals you to be a Troll…
Michael: (re: #63) Your behavior on that bus was exactly correct. You treated the person with respect which enabled him, hopefully, to hear what you had to say. As long as the pronouncements of our Church are consistent with the teaching of its founder there is no need to apologize for them.
As I understand it, the Corinthians and Galatians that Saint Paul had to deal with were a a wild bunch. Thomas Cahill writes that going from Ephesus to Corinth in Paul’s time was like travelling from Victorian Boston to the Dodge City in the wild west. The Corinthian church also had some sexually flamboyant characters. We see that Paul was gentle and patient with them, but always firm. He told them how much they were loved by God, what love means, and how they needed to show respect to God and to themselves and others.
I know that different online communities have different definitions of “Troll,” but I was curious what quality of my posts labels me as such. Is it because I don’t, as a person, agree with the underlying assumptions of the publishers of the blog, or is it the offensive and inflammatory nature of my posts?
I like to post here occasionally because I enjoy debate, and because this is a forum where people who have given genuine thought to their ideas often respond to the substance of an argument. Not always, but you’d be shocked how many conservative blogs are frequented by posters who are ill-informed.
That said, there are probably a lot of reasons someone would want to use a term like “judeo-christian,” some of them political, some not. I do think that there would be little difference in meaning for most speakers who say “We have a Judeo-Christian heritage” versus “We have a Christian heritage.” One reason may be due to the very examples that Jim cites: Christian culture has historically singled out Jewish culture as either evil or simply wrong, and examples of this can be found throughout the New Testament. Because Judaism predates Christianity and both began to flourish in the same small region of the world, Christian historical texts are particularly and specifically opposed to Judaism, where there are few or no mentions of other world religions, either because they were founded after Christianity’s important texts were written, or because those religions had not penetrated the fairly small geographic regions of the Middle East and Europe where Christianity first captured the hearts of civilizations.
As such, it’s extremely common for Christian writings to include Jews when the point of the writings are to not exclude, or to make it clear that the writer is not being anti-semitic. Thus, a speaker may use a phrase like “We have a Judeo-Christian heritage” to make explicit that they are not anti-semitic, even though few Jews were among the nation’s founding fathers. The speaker knows that the phrase “We have a Christian heritage” would sound exclusionary, and their point is not to exclude but to describe their view of history.
It’s a little bit redundant, but I suspect its usage is so common that most people who use the phrase don’t have a duplicitous ulterior motive. In some ways (and I don’t mean this in a militant way) its use is similar to the way many people use the phrase “gay and lesbian.” It’s redundant (lesbians are gay, after all), but a speaker in that case is just trying to make a point that they’re not excluding lesbians.
Christopher writes: “Your not interested in the common moral tradition, your interested in your own modernistic boogey men. Your not interested in “OrthdoxyToday”, your interested in “MondernismToday”, which is why you are a Troll.”
But everything I referred to in my previous post dealt with history, most with ancient history. In this discussion you are the modernist. You’re using a phrase that has been in existence for only a hundred years, and in common usage for 60 years. From the perspective of early Christianity it is a phrase that is completely incoherent. Had you walked around talking about the “judeo-christian tradition” in the 4th century, you probably would have been stoned to death, both by Christians AND Jews. Look, I’m sorry I took the shine off of your pet phrase. If you want to continue in the use of that modernist invention, that’s your business.
Christopher: “Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. If you knew ANYTHING about what the Church , what He said, you would know just how ignorant you are.”
I provided a number of quotations from the gospels demonstrating the attitude of Jesus toward the Pharisees, the fathers of modern Judaism. If you think Jesus had different ideas about them, great, I’m waiting.
Christopher: “Your interested in Trolling, lying, and spreading modernist propaganda…”
Christopher, you foam at the mouth a lot, but your posts on this topic have lacked any kind of actual evidence. You go off on these tirades, but are unable to defend your own position. If you think I’m wrong, show me how. I’m almost embarrassed when I read some of your posts, as you spew out this cloud of bluster and name-calling, and then you can’t follow it up with anything. You shout and wave your gun around and then never fire a shot.
Please, can someone lend Christopher an argument show him how to use it?
Note 59. James writes:
The Incarnation of Christ — which, in ways I don’t perceive or understand, changed the character, and perhaps even caused a fuller emergence, of the nature of the creation (notice I did not say the nature of God).*
Before the emergence of Christianity, the world was tribal. Think of Iraq and Iran today, or for that matter think of the tribal nature of Islam and how shame, rather than law, governs that culture. Then, think of that shame reaching into the very core of one’s being — no contact with other cultures, no recourse or reference to any enforceable law, death and disease all around — you get the drift. Then think about the laws of the OT and how they represent a quantum leap forward in moral comprehension and understanding. They were so comprehensive that a tribe could organize themselves around them; and they set out such a certain and stable equity in the relationships between people that shame based retribution would necessarily be banished. The OT makes a lot more sense in this context.
Then comes Christ who takes this (enlightened) (Mosaic) law and internalizes it. (Not only the adulterer has broken the law, but also one who lusts in his heart, for example) and the groundwork is laid for another quantum leap in moral understanding. Take this Gospel (now the Word of God is written on the fleshly tables of the heart instead of tablets of stone), preach it through the Hellenized world (who, the Church Fathers write, were prepared to hear it largely through the work of the pre-Socratics), and in the blink of an eye in historical terms, the pagan (Gentile) world was transformed into the ground of (Judeo)Christian civilization.
We are the recipients of this legacy. But, in our historical blindness and ignorance, and perhaps arrogance, we take this legacy and judge our forefathers by it. They were stupid we conclude, not realizing that in our arrogance we undermine the foundation they built.
_________________________________
*James, you speak here and there about understanding the nature of God. You cannot understand the nature of God. You are not God. It’s like an animal trying to understand human nature. It cannot be done. In the same way you cannot understand the mind of God. The scripture teaches we can only know the mind of Christ (Christ is the revelation of the Father to us), and that mind is revealed when we emulate his servanthood, which is to say if we obey the new commandment (in which the entire OT is encapsulated): Love God and neighbor.
This commandment BTW (and the ability to fulfill it — as the Saints did anyway), is the revolutionary new law that caused the quantum leap in moral self-understanding.
Note 61. Jim, you arguments have nothing to do with fact that Christianity emerges from Judaism. Even the Apostle Paul called Judaism the root, and Christianity the branch.
Further, the moral tradition of Western civilization draws from the Torah forward. This is self-evident and indisputable.
All this talk about the condemnation of the Pharisees (although Nicodemus was a Pharisee too), antisemitism, whatever, has absolutely no bearing on this clear, fundamental, and unquestionable, historical fact.
That’s all there is to it. Nothing more.
Thank you Father!
Note 70: As always, I appreciate the challenge to my current ways of understanding things. Do you believe that this moral framework that you refer to culminated in the New Testament, or that it continues to grow and refine itself since then?
It seems to me the latter, if only because we are more likely to forgive the differences of others than perhaps our ancestors were. We are not as easily threatened by the “otherness” of those with whom we can not relate, either because of culture or belief.
Of course, there is still progress to be made, most notably in our respect for human life. (I must admit I find this an inconsistency in the “humanitarian” ideology of the Left.)
Well, someone with more insight into these things than I have, said, yes. He argued that we stand at the threshold of an advance that is at least as great as the shift from the medieval to the modern period — an “antropological stage” he calls it.
A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978 — Read the entire piece but note the last handful of paragraphs in particular.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, you arguments have nothing to do with fact that Christianity emerges from Judaism.”
Let’s talk about the concept of “emerging from.” Consider the “anglo-american” tradition. We’re talking about people with a common language, common values, a common body of literature, and so on. But more importantly, there’s no idea that being an American entailed a rejection of being British. While it is true that the two countries were enemies from time to time, there was never a time when being British involved a rejection of “Americanism, ” nor vice versa. In that way, I think it makes perfect sense to talk about the anglo-american tradition.
Now consider Marxism and capitalism. Marxism can certainly be said to have “emerged from” capitalism, but both Marxism and capitalism utterly rejected each other. Thus, it makes no sense to speak of the “Marxist-capitalist” economic tradition. It is my contention that the “judeo-christian” tradition is very much like the “Marxist-capitalist” tradition.
Fr Hans: “Further, the moral tradition of Western civilization draws from the Torah forward. This is self-evident and indisputable.”
If you read the opinions of serious Orthodox and Conservative Jewish scholars, it is not as self-evidence as it appears on the surface. Some Jewish scholars even go so far as to say that Judaism is not a religion of the Bible, but of the Talmud. In modern Judaism, the Talmud is HUGE. It is not seen as a merely commentary on the Old Testament, but as a separate body of literature transcending even the Old Testament.
Fr. Hans: “That’s all there is to it. Nothing more.”
If you read the Jewish scholars, there is much more. I am impressed by their utter rejection of the idea of the judeo-christian tradition. The Christian will say “we worship the same God.” The Jew will reply “absolutely not,” and will see that statement as an attempt to “christianize” Judaism. Many Jewish scholars see the concept of the “judeo-christian” tradition as a modern American construct, an attractive myth, perhaps a well-meaning myth, that has little to do with history or theology.
Question: if the “judeo-christian tradition” is such a done deal, then why do so many esteemed Jewish scholars reject it? To me, I think it’s a matter of simple courtesy not to include people in a category whose existence they utterly reject.
Jim, have you ever thought that the modern Jewish scholars have rejected their own tradition precisely BECAUSE it would lead to Christianity if they did not?
Even Christ in the Apocalypse of John talks about the false Jews–those that claim to be Jews but are not.
Jim, you arguments have nothing to do with fact that Christianity emerges from Judaism. Even the Apostle Paul called Judaism the root, and Christianity the branch.
Dear Father
First it occurs to me to ask you a question — are your people Jewish?
I do not stop to think how Jewish people feel — perhaps with the apostle, that he would give away his own salvation, volunteering damnation, if only his own, his kinsmen in the flesh, would obtain their own. I appreciate this to a small degree as many have suffered a tear in the cloth [in choosing Orthodoxy.] Not unto despair, remorse & not to so great a degree, but tis not easy
I do not necessarily think I am in good form, to point this out – so let me be a fool, but you mean to say, “Gentiles the branch” [rather than “Christianity the branch.”] Rmns 11.
– Nancy.
Michael writes: “Jim, have you ever thought that the modern Jewish scholars have rejected their own tradition precisely BECAUSE it would lead to Christianity if they did not?”
I can’t peer into the hearts and minds of Jews today or two thousand years ago, but I can relate to you , within the limits of my understanding, how Jews ancient and modern thought about their own religion.
I don’t mean to be blunt, but speculating that they “rejected their own tradition because it would lead to Christianity,” sounds like a way of “christianizing” Judaism. In other words, the “judeo” part ends up being subsumed under and overshadowed by the “christian” part. In that sense, Judaism is seen as the opening band for the main act, Christianity. I think this kind of thinking is, at least in part, why so many Jews reject the idea of the ‘judeo-christian” tradition. They don’t believe they are the openers for someone else’s show.
In addition, the “tradition of the elders,” the oral law, existed long before the first century. When you read that phrase in the gospels, it’s talking about the oral law: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.”
Many conservative Jews believe that in addition to the Ten Commandments, God gave the oral law to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This law continued in oral form for hundreds of years. During this time, oral teaching, person to person, was seen as superior to the written text. In addition, the oral law was meant to be adaptable to many circumstances, not “written in stone.” In that sense it was “casuistic” — based on various hypothetical cases, not “apodictic” — a list of fixed and unalterable, absolutely certain commandments. As one web site puts it ” . . . the Oral Torah was meant to be fluid. The principles stayed the same, but the application of those principles was meant to be adapted to all types of new circumstances.”
Following the destruction of the Jewish temple and the disastrous Bar-Kokhba revolt, leading to the death of many rabbis and scholars, the oral law began to be written down, possibly out of fear that through the death of so many scholars the transmission of the traditions would end. Thus the written Talmud.
Modern Judaism — in other words, the Judaism of the last 2,000 years — is vastly different from Christianity, as many Jewish scholars understand. Most Christians know little or nothing about the Talmud, perhaps at best presuming that it is a kind of Bible handbook or commentary on the Bible. This is why the phrase “judeo-christian tradition” slips so easily off the tongues of modern American Christians — and sticks in the throat of traditional Jewish scholars.
One Jewish blogger put it this way:
This is from someone on the “judeo” side of things, echoing from a lay perspective what many Jewish scholars believe.
Note 75.
Because they still reject the appropriation of what they consider “their text” in Christian terms.
But it still has no bearing on the fact that the moral tradition of Western civilization draws from the Torah forward.
Islam is “Islamic” because it draws from the Koran. It’s cultural structures and ethos are shaped by it.
This really should not be that difficult to grasp. “Judeo/Christian” is a loose, but descriptive historical term that points to a moral tradition that shaped and informed Western culture.
As for Marxism vs. capitalism, that’s reductive. Marxism could only arise in a Judeo/Christian culture. It has the conceptual structure of Christianity.
Fr. Hans writes: “Because they still reject the appropriation of what they consider “their text” in Christian terms. But it still has no bearing on the fact that the moral tradition of Western civilization draws from the Torah forward. ”
I think it’s a lot more than that. In a recent article, Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner addresses this issue in various ways. (By the way, most of one chapter of the pope’s new book is devoted to discussing the ideas contained in Neusner’s “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.”)
Neusner believes that the teachings of Jesus actually were a rejection of Torah:
The pope’s book discusses those points of divergence:
To the extent that Jews perceive that the teachings of Jesus actually contradicted important points of Torah, they are gonig to reject the idea that both religions “go back to” or “come foward from” the Torah.
Another problem is the concept of “Torah.” By “Torah,” I think you mean the first five books of the Bible, and by extension, perhaps the rest of what Christians call the Old Testament. But for Jews, “Torah” is seen not only as the first five books of the Bible, but also the oral law that eventually became written down in the many volumes of the Talmud. In other words, in rejecting the religious approach of the Pharisees, Jesus is seen by Jews as, in effect, rejecting 99 percent of Torah:
The Christian view of “Torah” as consisting only of the books of Moses, or to some, perhaps only the Ten Commandments, is an example of how Christians unconsciously end up “christianizing” Judaism.
Neusner also brings up an interesting point about religious disputes:
[Note that while Neusner uses the term “judeo-christian,” it’s in the simple sense of Jews and Christians talking together, not of a shared tradition.]
In other words, the whole concept of the “judeo-christian tradition” is made possible by the modern practice of ignoring the truth claims of both relgions. This is why the concept of the judeo-christian tradition doesn’t emerge until the 20th century.
No doubt the motivation behind the concept is admirable, as it seeks to heal and reconcile. In recent years it has also been used politically as a way of forging a common front against the perceived assaults of secularism and modernism. People who in years past who would have been at each other’s throats (theologically and sometimes physically) are now embracing each other as “people of faith.” But this is accomplished only by papering over very serious disagreements that in centuries past would not have been overlooked for a moment. Thus, in an ironic sense, a concept that is used as a defense against modernism, is itself a product of modernism.
You can read the whole article by Neusner here:
http://www.forward.com/articles/
the-pope-and-i-a-debate-with-jesus-is-joined-by-b/
Once again, “Judeo-Christian” refers to a moral tradition. It really does not matter that Nuesner thinks here (I’m familiar with his arguments and the critiques through First Things). In fact, that you, a non-Jew and certainly not well versed in the internal debates within Judaism about these questions still engage them and to a certain extent understand them proves the point that much of this tradition is shared. (Why does Nuesner even publish in First Things after all?)
If you don’t like Judeo-Christian, stick with Christian if you want. It really does not matter. If you don’t like Christian, well, then there’s a denial of history taking place.
#75 Jim Holman –
You seem to have picked up Dean Scourtes’ habit of giving examples which disprove rather than support your argument. You say
America emerged from British colonies, but it wasn’t all peaches and cream – a war was fought if I remember correctly. And it is the case that being either a subject or a citizen entailed rejection of the alternative. Even today you can find legions of people in Britain that reject “Americanism” for any number of reasons.
Yet a third party, observing both countries would notice the tremendous commonalities and coin a term like “Anglo-American”.
You also say
Hmmm. So you think that there was a group of classical economists that met to discuss their theories, say like the Mount Perelin Society, and gradually a subset of these developed a theory of Marxism by assiduously examining new economic data. This group of formerly classical economists then broke away and started teaching Marxism. So, Marxism “emerged” from classical economics.
Let me just be charitable and suggest that you read a little about economics before you say things like that.
It doesn’t really matter what the Judeos and what the Chrisitans think about the term – especially those that are most chauvanistic about their beliefs. The point is, would a neutral third party observe the behavior of the two groups and say “Ah.. that looks like Judeo-Christian practice”.
Once again…
And again, and again, and again – the modernist neo-pagan Troll continues with his line of reasoning, introverted and unrelated to history of the Church/Jews and Orthodoxy, and for some reason you good folks give him the benefit of the doubt and actually try to address the propaganda, “reasoning’s” as such. It’s not about that…
You seem to have picked up Dean Scourtes’ habit of giving examples which disprove rather than support your argument.
It’s not about the arguments, it’s about his own internal psychology, the need to Troll, “debate”, and disrupt something he really has no interest in – Orthodoxy and an Orthodox thoughts on cultural events…
I know that different online communities have different definitions of “Troll,” but I was curious what quality of my posts labels me as such. Is it because I don’t, as a person, agree with the underlying assumptions of the publishers of the blog, or is it the offensive and inflammatory nature of my posts?
Good Question!!! It is mostly the first, but the second contributes because of the first. Let me explain. You are admittedly not Orthodox, or even Christian (correct me if I am wrong but I believe you explicitly are an atheist). Now, as such, why would you need to “debate” with someone whom you have no common ground? It could be an effort on your to learn more about the other philosophy, a genuine curiosity. If that were true, the nature of your posts would have the character of a “debate” or argument, but more of a questioning format. Much less likely, it could be that you simply saw a major flaw in something posted here, and you felt compelled to point it out (out of a neutral or good heart or “motive”). Of course, that would not be very often, because you would not have the requisite genuine curiosity about a philosophy that did not have anything in common with your own.
When one becomes a Troll is when one assumes a philosophy, and world view that is antithetical to Orthodoxy or traditional curiosity, AND when one insists on “debating” or “arguing” with Christians for ones own purposes (for example a felt satisfaction in “debate” with someone you disagree with, or an introverted need to sharpen your philosophy and arguments on someone else’s world view), AND when one chooses a “community” like this one to do this in. This stance is purposefully and willfully contrary to both the letter and spirit of the community. It is intentionally disruptive. It is simply rude in almost anyone’s definition.
This “community” is not a “debate” society. Actually, this one is, but that BECAUSE of two factors. The presence of two very persistent and selfish Trolls, AND the willingness of certain Orthodox participants to swallow the bait and continually “refute” and “debate” the Trolls. This community COULD be so much more than it is, but it continually is pulled down to the lowest common denominator, to those who thought is explicitly not even Christian, let alone Orthodox.
You Phil, have crossed the line into being a Troll several times, however you do display a willingness to respect others and the spirit of this website to a greater extant than the Jim or Dean. For example, the rest of your post is simply modernist bunk – a typical modern sociological interpretation of Jewish history and theology, and it’s relationship to Christian thought. Since as a Traditional Christian Orthodox people reject the very ground of your thought (i.e. we are determined “political” and “sociological” beings) it does not contribute in any way to an Orthodox understanding of the term “Judeo-Christian” or our culture. I predict however, unlike Jim and Dean, you will not post 10 or 20 follow-up posts that essentially restate your philosophy and “debating” the Christians here (who unfortunately swallow the bait way too often). You seem to realize that despite the several paragraphs of your argument, it really does not contribute anything, is not and can not be accepted by Christians (because we hold to a different reality – our disagreements about the basic nature of God, the Cosmos, what man is, etc.), and in an important way does not belong here…
I know that different online communities have different definitions of “Troll,” but I was curious what quality of my posts labels me as such. Is it because I don’t, as a person, agree with the underlying assumptions of the publishers of the blog, or is it the offensive and inflammatory nature of my posts?
Good Question!!! It is mostly the first, but the second contributes because of the first. Let me explain. You are admittedly not Orthodox, or even Christian (correct me if I am wrong but I believe you explicitly are an atheist). Now, as such, why would you need to “debate” with someone whom you have no common ground? It could be an effort on your to learn more about the other philosophy, a genuine curiosity. If that were true, the nature of your posts would have the character of a “debate” or argument, but more of a questioning format. Much less likely, it could be that you simply saw a major flaw in something posted here, and you felt compelled to point it out (out of a neutral or good heart or “motive”). Of course, that would not be very often, because you would not have the requisite genuine curiosity about a philosophy that did not have anything in common with your own.
When one becomes a Troll is when one assumes a philosophy, and world view that is antithetical to Orthodoxy or traditional curiosity, AND when one insists on “debating” or “arguing” with Christians for ones own purposes (for example a felt satisfaction in “debate” with someone you disagree with, or an introverted need to sharpen your philosophy and arguments on someone else’s world view), AND when one chooses a “community” like this one to do this in. This stance is purposefully and willfully contrary to both the letter and spirit of the community. It is intentionally disruptive. It is simply rude in almost anyone’s definition.
This “community” is not a “debate” society. Actually, this one is, but that BECAUSE of two factors. The presence of two very persistent and selfish Trolls, AND the willingness of certain Orthodox participants to swallow the bait and continually “refute” and “debate” the Trolls. This community COULD be so much more than it is, but it continually is pulled down to the lowest common denominator, to those who thought is explicitly not even Christian, let alone Orthodox.
You Phil, have crossed the line into being a Troll several times, however you do display a willingness to respect others and the spirit of this website to a greater extant than the Jim or Dean. For example, the rest of your post is simply modernist bunk – a typical modern sociological interpretation of Jewish history and theology, and it’s relationship to Christian thought. Since as a Traditional Christian Orthodox people reject the very ground of your thought (i.e. we are determined “political” and “sociological” beings) it does not contribute in any way to an Orthodox understanding of the term “Judeo-Christian” or our culture. I predict however, unlike Jim and Dean, you will not post 10 or 20 follow-up posts that essentially restate your philosophy and “debating” the Christians here (who unfortunately swallow the bait way too often). You seem to realize that despite the several paragraphs of your argument, it really does not contribute anything, is not and can not be accepted by Christians (because we hold to a different reality – our disagreements about the basic nature of God, the Cosmos, what man is, etc.), and in an important way does not belong here
It seems to me the latter, if only because we are more likely to forgive the differences of others than perhaps our ancestors were. We are not as easily threatened by the “otherness” of those with whom we can not relate, either because of culture or belief.
This is the standard modernist tale that grows out of a progressive view of man and his past, presence, and future. If by “we” you mean Christians, then no, we are not any more or less threatened by “otherness”. Thus a Saint of the middle ages and a Saint of today displays the same level of Charity, “toleration”, of other cultures and beliefs.
James, why don’t you try reading a few of the articles on this website in an attempt to challenge your modernist anthropology?
I know that different online communities have different definitions of “Troll,” but I was curious what quality of my posts labels me as such. Is it because I don’t, as a person, agree with the underlying assumptions of the publishers of the blog, or is it the offensive and inflammatory nature of my posts?
Good Question!!! It is mostly the first, but the second contributes because of the first. Let me explain. You are admittedly not Orthodox, or even Christian (correct me if I am wrong but I believe you explicitly are an atheist). Now, as such, why would you need to “debate” with someone whom you have no common ground? It could be an effort on your to learn more about the other philosophy, a genuine curiosity. If that were true, the nature of your posts would have the character of a “debate” or argument, but more of a questioning format. Much less likely, it could be that you simply saw a major flaw in something posted here, and you felt compelled to point it out (out of a neutral or good heart or “motive”). Of course, that would not be very often, because you would not have the requisite genuine curiosity about a philosophy that did not have anything in common with your own.
When one becomes a Troll is when one assumes a philosophy, and world view that is antithetical to Orthodoxy or traditional curiosity, AND when one insists on “debating” or “arguing” with Christians for ones own purposes (for example a felt satisfaction in “debate” with someone you disagree with, or an introverted need to sharpen your philosophy and arguments on someone else’s world view), AND when one chooses a “community” like this one to do this in. This stance is purposefully and willfully contrary to both the letter and spirit of the community. It is intentionally disruptive. It is simply rude in almost anyone’s definition.
continued next post.
Christopher writes: “Thus a Saint of the middle ages and a Saint of today displays the same level of Charity, “toleration”, of other cultures and beliefs.”
Consider the words of John Chrysostom who wrote no less than eight sermons against the Jews in which he states: “The Jews do not worship God but devils [Sermon I:3, based on John 8:19], so that all their feasts are unclean [Sermon I:6]. God hates them, and indeed has always hated them”
What about Spain in 1492 when the Jews were forcefully expelled from the country under the guidance of the Catholic Church’s Father Tomas Torquemada?
Let’s go to others in the “Judeo-Christian” heritage that you consistently call “heretics” while simultaneously insisting they share your moral outlook. Martin Luther writes: “What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?…First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. ”
Contrast this to Nostra Aetate composed under Pope Paul VI in which the Jews are recognized as part of the same tradition and which denies that they are corporately responsible for the death of Christ.
Christopher, with all due respect, I don’t think you’ve put forth a single quote or piece of evidence to back any assertion you’ve ever made. If you have a point, it might help to at least quote something.
If you don’t like Judeo-Christian, stick with Christian if you want. It really does not matter. If you don’t like Christian, well, then there’s a denial of history taking place.
Father, and Lay Theologians:
Maybe Judeo-Christian serves the Jealousy Factor, taught in Romans 11, as part of the mystery Paul does not want us “to be ignorant of.”
To the Jew first, also the Greek.
— This is meant for Gentiles to feel humility.
The Church [Jews/Gentiles as one man, Ephesians] is NEW ISRAEL Galatians 6:16
Sarah is also our mother: The Jerusalem above is free & the mother of us all.
Galatians 4
— This is meant for Israel to feel humilty.
The matter of Jealousy?
The New Israel? In Romans 11, Paul states clearly: “I don’t want you to be ignorant of this mystery.” He shows how Gentile’s inclusion on the Tree of God’s Favor, the Abrahamic Covenant with it’s awesome promise: “I will GOD to you” is meant to cause Jews to feel jealousy. BUT, for the ultimate/ultimate purpose of their conversion.
The uncomfortable role Christians have, as the younger son, is how to act with all humility in the presence of the older son?
If Abraham is the lavish father granting forgiveness [& inclusion] to all — then Christians have an uncomfortable role.
Addressing the older son:
Prayer:
For sincerity without pretentiousness,
known most assuredly and profoundly
under the dome of Christ Pantocrator:
Father of us all, in the dignified Litugical prayers
rooted in the Temple ‘manners’ — but to Christ
James, it doesn’t matter. You can find inflammatory stuff against Christians by the Jews as well. OTOH, you can find examples where Christians helped Jews, and vice-versa.
Try to think a bit more broadly. The term “Judeo-Christian” is a category that distinguishes Western civilization from those with a different cultural tradition, i.e. Hinduism, Islam, etc. etc. No matter what the history between Christians and Jews might be, whether hostile or benevolent, the moral ground of both is the same.
Christopher, with all due respect, I don’t think you’ve put forth a single quote or piece of evidence to back any assertion you’ve ever made.
ha! Try reading this blog. Better yet, try reading a few articles on this web site to understand while your last post is yet again in that typical modernist/progressive line, view of history, etc.
Or better yet, why don’t you take you liberal tripe to http://www.EpiscopalianToday.org where it belongs??
Let’s go to others in the “Judeo-Christian” heritage that you consistently call “heretics” while simultaneously insisting they share your moral outlook. Martin Luther
This is (yet again) a good example of a Troll. James has been posting here for months (a year at least?) Yet takes no interest, no interest at all, in the Orthodox use of the term “heretic”. Thus he really believes it is inconsistent to correctly identify a heretic like Martin Luther as someone Orthodox have much in common with, enough to certainly justify them as “Judeo-Christian”.
Really, what is the point of coming to (let alone posting on) a site named “OrthdoxyToday” if you are not going to put forth any effort to understand what Orthodoxy is???
#86 JamesK
Why is this so hard? Persons or groups that have squabbled with, or even fought, each other might still have a lot in common, especially if one emerged from the other. Whether a hyphenated descriptor is applied probably has a lot to do with whether they end up reconciling or not, or who it is that is doing the describing.
Anglo-American probably would have sounded funny in 1776. It made perfect sense in 1976. Judeo-Christian would have sounded strange in Spain in 1492, but it makes sense in the 21st century since Jews and Christians spent the 20th century forging a rapproachment. Jim Holman keeps saying that the term gained traction around WWII. I wonder whether the fact that his co-religionists were herding Jews into the gas chambers had anything to do with hastening the rapproachment and the recognition of a Judeo-Christian heritage.
Nostra Aetate was the result of reflecting on the meaning of ancient writings in the light of recent events, and it brought about a long overdue rethinking.
All of this strikes me as positive and something that liberals and conservatives should celebrate. I can’t fathom why some think it is part of a political conspiracy. Well actually I can. If one cultivates the attitude that everything is part of a political conspiracy this one falls in with everything else. Clear thinking is the victim.
Jews have priority. How they do & do not.
They do.
1. The Jews have a priority over Gentiles as the chosen people of God
2. The Jews have a priority over Gentiles as the guardians of God’s special revelation, the Old Testament Scriptures
3. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that the Messiah himself, Jesus Christ, came first as a Jew to the Jews
4. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that salvation is from the Jews
5. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in that Paul evangelized Jews first when he brought the gospel to a new place
6. The Jews have a priority over the Gentiles in final judgment and final blessing.
They do not.
1. The Jews do not have priority in righteousness or merit
2. The Jews do not have priority in how they are saved
3. The Jews do not have priority in participation in God’s covenant blessings
Source of above outline:
From message of a non-NCC Protestant/non-zionist
What is this great Abrahamic Covenant? – the Root of which Gentiles share blessings?
1. The covenant is made first with Abraham
Renewed in Isaac… a very specific ‘line’ of Jews…this one, not that one —
Jacob, not Esau…. Leah’s son [not the favored Rachel’s] all the way down…through the tribe of Judah…Ruth/Boaz, David, not one of the brothers……ultimately fulfilled in Christ The Vine. Rev. 5.5 Christ of Judah, Root of David.
2. He is to be father of many nations
3. By you all the families of the earth will be blessed.
4. Number will be as many as the sands on seashore.
5. All the Land you see I will give you & your descendants forever
6. Number? Can you count the stars in the heavens?
7. I will be GOD to you and to your descendants after you
8. The land of Canaan
9. Circumcision was to be the sign of the covenant
10. I will be GOD to you.
11. Because you did not withhold your son, your only son, I will indeed
bless you.
12. Number? Can you count the sands upon the seashore?
Source: Genesis 12:1-7 Covenant stated, confirmed/expanded in 13:14-17, 15:1-21, 17:1-14 and
22:15-18.
Why is this so hard?
Because they are Trolls. They are not trying to understand, they are trying to disrupt, “debate”. With their modernist/secular introverted minds and philosophy, if it does not fit into their world view it is a “conspiracy” by Christians who, as everyone knows, hate Jews, blacks, women, gays, muslims, atheists, farmers, boat captains, little girls in pink dresses and puppies…;)
Yes, looking back at history now, we see a common heritage between Jews and Christians, and I’m certain there was some reciprocal decency and indecency between both. This is not the point.
I’m speaking in terms of what the “official” position of the corporate Christian Church was throughout history. What were the statements coming from the mouths of the most prominent Christian spokespeople at the time, the ones we now consider to be the “giants” of the Christian faith? Well, I quoted them. Their general position was not in any way based on the same outlook as that put forth in Nostra Aetate (which I do see as a positive development, not a conspiracy) which stated:
“No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. ”
The Church is far more sensitive to justice on an individual level today than it was in the past, and I don’t understand how anyone can see it otherwise. So here I am, defending the current Church position and I am taken to task for it. I’m not sure what to say.
*****
On a side note, Christopher, you do know that living in a perpetual state of outrage leads to hypertension, headaches and all other sorts of unwanted medical problems, right? Chill. I’ve shown myself more than willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. You just haven’t provided one yet.
I read these two interesting quotes on Wikipedia’s page about “Troll”:
The word troll is often and easily (mis)used as an ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot otherwise be silenced […]
and
Sometimes, overly using the word “troll” may constitute trolling in itself.
Tom, I hope you realize these points are not brought up as an attack. It seems, however, that one of the key elements of the Christian faith is dealing with unpleasant truths about ourselves and even the things that we align ourselves with in this life (whether it’s one’s family, faith, traditions, culture, etc.).
There have been errors on the part of Christendom as a whole towards the Jewish people. Had there not been, why else would Pope John Paul II have felt the necessity to have the Day of Pardon Mass asking forgiveness for the Church’s excesses throughout the centuries? Was this a political ploy? I, for one, don’t believe it was. This act showed great humility on his part.
So, when someone says, “the church’s ‘tolerance’ of Jews has been the same for the last 2,000 years’, I have to wonder whether they’re simply ignorant of the facts or if they feel a necessity to hide them. Either way, I do not see how one can further the interests of “Truth” by distortion of the facts.
Only by acknowledging and confronting these things as JPII did can progress be made.
#93 and #95 JamesK
I think it is symptomatic of our age to look at the past as completely unredeemable in regards to conflicts between races, religions, etc. The reality is far more complex. Relations between the Indians and European settlers were not uniformly wicked. Likewise between Jews and Christians over all those centuries. The inflammatory quotes are unfortunately the ones preserved in amber. Harmonious relations are not always commented on explicitly.