Negative sides of Christianity

[Marulus]

I recalled a locus from one of the Homilies Against Jews by John Chrysostome, where he said, speaking of the Jews: "Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons." (Homily 1, II, 1)

As for Paul's passage, I read it through last evening and read some interpretations thereof by Church tradition and I concluded that this passage is usually understood as announcing a hope for the conversion of the whole Israel, for the accepting of Christ on their part, which is the prerequisite for salvation. The fact that it is said that Israel is still cherished on the account of their fathers does not imply chosenness of the earthly Israel, but a ardent wish of God that the descendants of those who were originally chosen accept Christ and attain salvation. The traditional Roman Catholic mass had a famous sentence for centuries, which called for the conversion of Jews (pro conversione perfidorum Iudaeorum), that they accept Christ in their heart and abandon their obstinacy in unbelief. This "prayer for the Jews" was abandoned by the Second Vatican Council.

The fact still remains that neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox Chruch never claimed (apart of some scattered heretical teachings) that Jews were still chosen after the rejection of Jesus Christ. In both these churches tradition and traditional interpretations of Bible were considered as important for the definition of the ecclesiastical doctrine and of the articles of faith as the very text of Bible. Since the Protestant Reformation and its principle of "free and individual interpretation of the Scripture" gained momentum, different passages from Bible have been (ab)used and twisted around, in order to justify all kinds of perversions, "Christian Zionism" being one among the worst.

Not that I say that Bible should not be read, but only interpretations, which should be blindly obeyed. On the contrary, I think that reading Bible is a good thing, but some sort of spiritual preparation, so to say, is needed. Once I recall reading in a textbook of theology that theological conclusions have always (at least in the Western tradition) been guided by three basic principles: the text of the Scripture, tradition and common sense.

[Marulus]

And, let us not forget: when Paul spoke these words, Talmudic Judaism still did not exist, or it was in its germ. That system started to develop only several hundred years after the emergence of Christianity.

[Gnist]

What I said was that Marulus and Mynydd say things about the New Testament that are not true. I did not say that the New Testament is the only foundation of Christian doctrines. That's beside the point of my arguments. I think it is better to read the New Testament and to form an opinion about it thus, than to cling to prejudiced opinions about what it says.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

What I said was that Marulus and Mynydd say things about the New Testament that are not true. I did not say that the New Testament is the only foundation of Christian doctrines. That's beside the point of my arguments. I think it is better to read the New Testament and to form an opinion about it thus, than to cling to prejudiced opinions about what it says.

OK. But the thread is about the "negative sides of Christianity" and not "the neagtive sides of the New Testament".

That the New Testament contains loci which offer grounds for different interpretations, I did not deny.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Marulus

OK. But the thread is about the "negative sides of Christianity" and not "the neagtive sides of the New Testament".

That the New Testament contains loci which offer grounds for different interpretations, I did not deny.

We can split it if you prefer, but I think you are bending backwards if you deny that the New Testament is relevant to the subject - the New Testament as such, and not just the official Catholic interpretations of it. A discussion of the New Testament should be a part of this debate. Its contents have been referred to as a ground on which a Judaeic character of Christianity may be rebutted, and I straightforwardly contest that claim with evidence.

If you trust the Catholic interpretations for the purposes of a discussion about the New Testament, then what you say about it is an article of your faith, and not in the realm of unbiased exegesis and inquiry.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

We can split it if you prefer

No need.

Originally Posted by Gnist

but I think you are bending backwards if you deny that the New Testament is relevant to the subject - the New Testament as such, and not just the official Catholic interpretations of it.

It is. All I said was that in both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches the texts of the Old and the New Testament are seen in conjunction with the Church tradition as forming some larger unity.

Originally Posted by Gnist

A discussion of the New Testament should be a part of this debate. Its contents have been referred to as a ground on which a Judaeic character of Christianity may be rebutted, and I straightforwardly contest that claim with evidence.

Still that chapter does not claim that Israelites are automatically saved. It is quite ambiguous and it does not - independently from later Catholic interpretations - unambigusously claim that Jews are still chosen and that they are automatically saved. Doesn't Paul say: "some of those of my flesh might (ie. the Israelites) emulate me and be saved".

On the other hand, Israel could be taken in a spiritual sense, allegorically, as symbolizing the entire humanity, a part whereof accepts God's messages (a small part of those who did not bow their knees before the idol of Baal) and another (bigger) part outright rejects it.

Originally Posted by Gnist

If you trust the Catholic interpretations for the purposes of a discussion about the New Testament, then what you say about it is an article of your faith, and not in the realm of unbiased exegesis and inquiry.

There is no entirely "ubiased" exegesis and enquiry.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Marulus

On the other hand, Israel could be taken in a spiritual sense, allegorically, as symbolizing the entire humanity, a part whereof accepts God's messages (a small part of those who did not bow their knees before the idol of Baal) and another (bigger) part outright rejects it.

That would break with the overall terminology and tendency in that chapter, and it would certainly be a very clumsy manner of expression.

Originally Posted by Marulus

There is no entirely "ubiased" exegesis and enquiry.

I think that an honest attempt at discerning what the New Testament says is way to go. References to how the Catholic church interpreted the New Testament is not even an attempt at unbiased exegesis. If you don't want to get into it, I respect your reluctance, but that's not an argument against my interpretation of the New Testament.

If the Catholic church so strongly insists that Christians don't read what the New Testament says, then they should perhaps prohibit Catholics from reading it. To say that the New Testament cannot be interpreted by an independent inquirer is simply to say:

-Get lost! It's my book!

I don't take that attitude seriously.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

That would break with the overall terminology and tendency in that chapter, and it would certainly be a very clumsy manner of expression.

It is only one of my suggestions for a possible interpretation of that passage, along the line of your proposal to try to interpret the New Testament independently, as such.

Originally Posted by Gnist

I think that an honest attempt at discerning what the New Testament says is way to go. References to how the Catholic church interpreted the New Testament is not even an attempt at unbiased exegesis. If you don't want to get into it, I respect your reluctance, but that's not an argument against my interpretation of the New Testament.

Do I have to repeat the same thing one hundred times? Where did I say that I do not want to get into it? I just say that also the tradition is to be taken into account when talking about Christianity and its degree of rootedness into Judaism. But I accept that also attempt can be made to interpret New Testament as such. However, we all have our preconceptions, our ideas, independently from whether we are or are not Catholics.

Originally Posted by Gnist

If the Catholic church so strongly insists that Christians don't read what the New Testament says, then they should perhaps prohibit Catholics from reading it.

There was such a prohibition for some time in earlier centuries. And I don't think it was good.

Originally Posted by Gnist

To say that the New Testament cannot be interpreted by an independent inquirer

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by Gnist

-Get lost! It's my book!

I don't take that attitude seriously.

Just for your information, I am not one of those folklore Cath'lics. I was not raised in that way (I was not even baptized as a child), it is my personal choice in adult age. Everything, absolutely everything I say and write on this board and what I speak in real life about religion, comes exclusively from my own convictions, which is result of reading, independent thinking and asking theologians and priests. So, please, don't confound me with floklore Cath' lics (not that I have anything against those people, or that I despise them, just saying I am not one of them). If anything, I can't stand "cultural Christianity" without faith.

[Errigal]

It would seem to me the only reasonable reading of that passage in Romans Chapter 11 would be that the Jews broke their covenant with God when they rejected Christ but that they would be welcomed back by God if they accepted Christ and his teachings. The Jews who did not accept Christ are not forever cursed but they are also no longer the Chosen. They are the branches broken off from the olive tree when they failed to accept Christ.

[Marulus]

Once again I refer to the fact that the Israelites of Paul's times were something entirely different than Talmudic Jews of today. This also has to be taken into account. What would he say about Talmudists, who built an entire sophisticated tradition around the rejection of Christ and a new book (Talmud), for which they claim that it surpassed the Old Testament. Is he said something concerning the Israelites of his time, does it refer to Jews of all times? Not necessarily.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Once again I refer to the fact that the Israelites of Paul's times were something entirely different than Talmudic Jews of today. This also has to be taken into account. What would he say about Talmudists, who built an entire sophisticated tradition around the rejection of Christ and a new book (Talmud), for which they claim that it surpassed the Old Testament. Is he said something concerning the Israelites of his time, does it refer to Jews of all times? Not necessarily.

Very true. Saint Paul's letter to the Romans is an historical document as well as being part of the Bible. In other words it comes from a particular time and place.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Marulus

I just say that also the tradition is to be taken into account when talking about Christianity and its degree of rootedness into Judaism.

And I agree about that. Where did I say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Marulus

But I accept that also attempt can be made to interpret New Testament as such. However, we all have our preconceptions, our ideas, independently from whether we are or are not Catholics.

I'm not making puns at you for being a Catholic. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a Catholic to interpret the New Testament independently.

Originally Posted by Marulus

There was such a prohibition for some time in earlier centuries. And I don't think it was good.

I have heard about it too.

Originally Posted by Marulus

Where did I say that?

I didn't say that you said it. I said "To say that ...".

Originally Posted by Marulus

Just for your information, I am not one of those folklore Cath'lics. I was not raised in that way (I was not even baptized as a child), it is my personal choice in adult age. Everything, absolutely everything I say and write on this board and what I speak in real life about religion, comes exclusively from my own convictions, which is result of reading, independent thinking and asking theologians and priests. So, please, don'0t confound me with floklore Cath' lics (not that I have anything against those people, or that I despise them, just saying I am not one of them). If anything, I can't stand "cultural Christianity" without faith.

I didn't really, did I?

Marulus:

Once again I refer to the fact that the Israelites of Paul's times were something entirely different than Talmudic Jews of today. This also has to be taken into account. What would he say about Talmudists, who built an entire sophisticated tradition around the rejection of Christ and a new book (Talmud), for which they claim that it surpassed the Old Testament. Is he said something concerning the Israelites of his time, does it refer to Jews of all times? Not necessarily.

I don't understand where you get this from. It's not from me.

Errigal:

It would seem to me the only reasonable reading of that passage in Romans Chapter 11 would be that the Jews broke their covenant with God when they rejected Christ but that they would be welcomed back by God if they accepted Christ and his teachings. The Jews who did not accept Christ are not forever cursed but they are also no longer the Chosen. They are the branches broken off from the olive tree when they failed to accept Christ.

Something like that, once you try to cancel out the apparent contradictions. I agree. But the perspective is obviously Judaeic, through and through. Why is it so important for Paul to stress that the Jews are the natural branches of the olive tree?

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Gnist

...
Errigal: Something like that, once you try to cancel out the apparent contradictions. I agree. But the perspective is obviously Judaic, through and through. Why is it so important for Paul to stress that the Jews are the natural branches of the olive tree?

I would guess he was trying to calm the conflict between Jews and the early Christians in Rome.