Stephen Sizer - a timeline
Further to their previous open letter to the South East Gospel Partnership, in the interests of transparency, here follows a timeline which discloses the evidence behind the claims of the Rev’d Nick Howard and James Mendelsohn about the Rev'd Dr Stephen Sizer(NB none of the emails disclosed in this post were marked ‘Private and Confidential’.)
4th October 2011
Dr Sizer posts a link on his Facebook page to the racist website 'The Ugly Truth: Zionism, Jewish extremism and a few other nasty items making our world uninhabitable today'. No one, including Dr Sizer, denies the posting of the link or the anti-Semitic nature of the website.
16th November 2011
The following complaint is sent to Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford:
From: Nick Howard
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:05
To: Mary Morris
Subject: Message for Bishop Christopher
Dear Bishop,
I am writing to appeal to you to suspend Rev. Stephen Sizer from his duties as vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water.
Although I feel there are many grounds for such a severe action, I want to focus on just one, which is his use of Facebook. As you will know, the Bishop of Willesden was suspended last year after making inappropriate comments about the Royal Family on Facebook. Yet Rev. Sizer has recently used Facebook in a much more disturbing and offensive way.
On October 4th he posted a link on his Facebook page to an anti-Semitic hate website called ‘The Ugly Truth: Zionism, Jewish extremism and a few other nasty items making our world uninhabitable today’. The website greets its visitors with unbelievably racist cartoons (see the attached example).
The specific article recommended by Rev. Sizer is accompanied by a cartoon by the Brazilian cartoonist 'Latuff', runner-up in the notorious 2006 Iranian ‘International Holocaust Cartoon Competition’. As you can see from the attachment, it is appallingly insensitive.
Rev. Sizer might claim that the particular article he recommended is not in itself anti-Semitic. Yet it cannot be denied that the website hosting the article is anti-Semitic. Rev. Sizer has directed his 800 Facebook friends, without any word of warning, apology or qualification, to a website whose banner claims that Zionists (that is, patriotic Israelis) make ‘our world uninhabitable’. This extreme hostility towards Israel, which lies far outside the boundaries of respectable debate about the Middle East, would immediately be recognised by Jewish people as anti-Semitic, even without the above-mentioned cartoons which put that beyond doubt.
I am sorry to have to bring such disturbing material to your attention, but I hope you will agree that it gives you the opportunity to take decisive action to uphold the reputation of the Church of England. If the Bishop of Willesden's inappropriate use of Facebook merited suspension, how much more does Rev. Sizer's.
Yours sincerely,
Revd Nick Howard
22nd November 2011 - Part I
Bishop Christopher sends this response:
From: Mary Morris
Subject: RE: Message for Bishop Christopher
Date: 22 November 2011 12:34:32 EST
To: Nick Howard
Our ref: +C/amb/22.11-12
22nd November 2011
Thank you for your message in criticism of the Revd Stephen Sizer. Your comparison with the Bishop of Willesden is not in fact exactly correct. The Bishop of Willesden technically suspended himself, it was not a disciplinary process. I am not denying that the Bishop’s remarks were highly inappropriate and embarrassing to say the least.
The Revd Stephen Sizer’s opinions are clearly radically different from your own. I shall speak to the Revd Stephen Sizer about his use of Facebook but at the moment I see nothing which would merit disciplinary matters, not least because differing political opinions are definitely exempted from disciplinary proceedings in the Church of England according to the Clergy Disciplinary Measure. There may be changes to the Measure in the future which would make it possible that membership or support of the British National Party, for example, could become a disciplinary matter. But I am sure that Stephen Sizer himself would be highly critical of neo fascist movements as well as the fascism in the past which created the awfulness of the holocaust.
There is also the question of the uncontrollable linkage on of Facebook. One does not have control of that when one may not always agree with other people on related face books. This is one of the reasons I am somewhat cautious about Facebook myself and am not on it.
+Christopher Guildford
22nd November 2011 - Part II
Bishop Christopher sends a copy of the 16th November complaint to Dr Sizer. This is later confirmed by the following email (emphasis added):
From: Bishop of Guildford
Subject: RE: Phone conversation follow-up
Date: 13 June 2012 11:00:34 EDT
To: Nick Howard
Cc: Mary Morris
Dear Nick
In Bishop Christopher’s absence I can confirm that it seems that he did copy your email of 16 November to Dr Sizer who acknowledged it the same day, ie 22 November. This email did include the screenshots.
(I can’t of course confirm whether the latter would show on Dr Sizer’s computer if eg he was reading in plain text, in which case they may have appeared as attachments, if at all.)
I trust this answers your questions.
Yours in Christ
Mark
The Revd Mark Heather BA LLB
Chaplain to the Bishop of Guildford
22nd November 2011 - Part III
As revealed above by Rev'd Mark Heather, Dr Sizer emails the Bishop of Guildford acknowledging receipt of his email about the link to 'The Ugly Truth'. To respond on the same day was highly efficient. But sadly, and tellingly, Dr Sizer did not also take the trouble to remove the link from his Facebook page. (To do so would have been very easy: he simply had to click on a drop-down list next to the link, select 'Delete Post...' and then choose between 'Delete Post' or 'Cancel'.)
4th January 2012
Under pressure from the Jewish Chronicle, Sizer at last removes the link to 'The Ugly Truth' from his Facebook page.
1st March 2012
Not content with posting a link to 'The Ugly Truth' on Facebook, Dr Sizer posts a link to 'Veterans Today', an equally sickening anti-Semitic website, on his blog.
13th March 2012
The Council of Christians and Jews issues a press release titled 'CCJ Statement about Antisemitic website', which includes the following comment:
The Rt. Revd Nigel McCulloch, the Bishop of Manchester and Chairman of CCJ said: “The content and the delay in removing the link from Mr Sizer’s Facebook page was disgraceful and unbecoming for a clergyman of the Church of England to promote. Members of the CCJ have described the website as ‘obscenely antisemitic.’"14th March 2012
The Diocese of Guildford releases a defensive statement in response to the CCJ (emphasis added):
‘The allegation, as the Bishop understands it, is that Mr Sizer did not withdraw his reference swiftly enough once the nature of the website had been pointed out to him [i.e. on 22nd November]. The Bishop was informed by Mr Sizer that he had taken earlier steps to withdraw the reference, but that these had not effectively removed it, until January of this year.’1st May 2012
Dr Sizer posts an open letter on his blog titled 'Response to the Council of Christians and Jews', in which he says the following (emphasis added):
'On 4 October 2011, I posted a link to an essay “Israel's Window to Bomb Iran”, by Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA analyst, commenting on circumstances in which Israel might attack Iran. Regrettably the link that I used was not to the original website but to a different website which I now know contained scurrilous and offensive material. I was made aware of this on 3 January 2012 as a result of an enquiry by the Jewish Chronicle. I could not find the link and assumed, wrongly, that I had removed it. I found it on 4 January 2012 and removed it immediately... Some ten weeks later, on 13 March 2012, the Council for Christians and Jews... said that I was “alerted to the anti-Semitic nature of the website in November and again in December, but only removed the link in January when contacted by the Jewish Chronicle.” Whatever the CCJ might think has happened I have explained here how and when the link came to my attention. It did not come to my attention before then... If the CCJ does not feel able to make it clear that its allegations were ill founded it will, I hope, reflect on the reliability of its informants and think very hard before naming people who might in the future be the innocent victims of ill-considered complaints.'It is quite astonishing that Dr Sizer describes himself as an 'innocent victim' of 'ill-considered complaints'. He knew perfectly well that the CCJ's charge was in fact wholly accurate, i.e. that he had only removed the link in January despite being warned in November. He was even contradicting his own diocese's response to the CCJ, which had been to claim that the six-week delay was the result of ineffective attempts to remove the link (see 14th March above). The CCJ's Patron has been HM the Queen since 1952 and its Presidents include the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi. It is the UK's oldest Jewish/Christian interfaith organisation. Dr Sizer brazenly sought to harm its reputation, and the reputation of its 'informants', on an entirely false basis.
1st June 2012
Not content with posting links to 'The Ugly Truth' and 'Veterans Today', Dr Sizer posts a link to yet another racist website: 'Window into Palestine'. Defending himself in the Jewish Chronicle, Sizer says 'There was no suggestion of any offensive material in the story to which I linked' - and yet the title of that story was 'The BBC caught out with its Zionist-run propaganda machine', which the vast majority of Jewish people would immediately recognise as anti-Semitic (and utterly ridiculous). Dr Sizer also told the JC, 'I only came across [the article] after conducting a Google image search for the photo by Marco Di Lauro, which was central to the apparent BBC error which I wished to highlight.' He was seeking to explain what he was doing viewing a racist website in the first place, let alone posting a link to it. But his explanation was easy to test. Numerous people at the time tried 'conducting a Google image search for the photo by Marco Di Lauro' and yet 'Window into Palestine' was nowhere to be seen in the results.
4th July 2012
The Committee of the South East Gospel Partnership, despite being aware of the above, say they see 'no justifiable grounds for breaking gospel partnership with Stephen or with Christ Church Virginia Water.'
Let's close with just a few of the many questions arising from this timeline.
1. Quite apart from the anti-Semitism, why does the congregation of Christ Church Virginia Water allow such a mendacious man to care for their souls?
2. Why did the Diocese of Guildford, in full possession of the relevant facts, allow Dr Sizer's slanderous attack on the Council of Christians and Jews to remain uncorrected?
3. How many more racist links will it take before the Committee of the South East Gospel Partnership see 'justifiable grounds for breaking gospel partnership' with Dr Sizer and his church? Two or twenty-two?
Rev. Nick Howard
Assistant Minister, Christ Church New York City
James Mendelsohn
Senior Lecturer in Law, Huddersfield University
posted byArchbishop Cranmer at 9:31 am Permalink
96 Comments:
Unfortunately a lot of officials in religious organisations seem to have more loyalty to those organisations than they do to God. That is surely the reason why there were so many cover-ups of sex abuse scandals in the RC Church. Ironically even from a cynically pragmatic view that attitude is counter-productive since the cover ups have added to the scandal.
No doubt the same sort of mentality exists in some Protestant organisations too. I hope it does not exist in the Committee of the South East Gospel Partnership but the way in which they handle this case will tell us where their true loyalties lie.
Your Grace
Let’s surmise Nick Howard’s letter: “Dear Bishop, it has come to my attention that one of your clerics holds views I do not agree with. Suspend immediately on receipt of this email”
Good try Howard, but the Bishop of Guildford is having nothing to do with it. Well done that man.
Let him who has something to say say it. Applies to Sizer AND Howard
" ... such a mendacious man ..."
That's it then. No room for doubt or uncertainty. His explanations are nothing but lies something he does habitually to mask his antisemiticism.
Off with his head!
Perhaps the most interesting remark is that in the reply of the Bishop regarding the BNP. He seems to assume that fanaticism can be neatly limited to the apparently synonymous BNP and facism.
One wonders quite on what basis a Christian minister may be disciplined in the CofE. Certainly not for holding various heretical viewpoints regarding atonement or the Resurrection. Nor for political reasons.
I'm inclined to see some measure of sense in what the Inspector is saying. I'd rather not see a CofE which distinguishes solely on political grounds what is good and what is forbidden, not least because I suspect liberalism would come very high on the list of "good". But there is always, to my mind, a fundamental question of integrity regarding God's ministers.
The Bishop of Willesden was not right to suspend himself because he was a Republican - but because the tenor and vitriol of his comments did not belie a man of God. Sizer's posts and comments come under this also: there is no place for hatred in the hearts of those who profess Christ. At the least, I would expect Sizer's pastoral senior to discuss and pray on thsi matter with him.
"Off with his head!" Spoken with much authority, coming from such an historical experience and a wealth of such said events, dear bird???
Blofeld
This is all rather he said she said trivia. They want to have David Duke on!!!
I'm coming to the conclusion that the jews are as bad as the muslims, one's primitive the other advanced both are uncivilised, both want to rule the world. The jews almost do through the financial institutions and media outlets, and I am fed of hearing about them both. I think jews should take a leaf out of orthodox jew Rabbi Weiss's book and leave Israel.
Marie is right. The Palestinians do come across as low value people, as indeed any race saddled with Islam will, and the Israelis as haughty. A direct consequence of their stand alone position over two millennia. If the world is considered a human body, it is possible to live with a running sore on part of it. Just leave well alone...
Marie,
Oh nothing like the unbiased opinion of a KKK ex "wizard" and founder of stormfront to set the record straight? Where is your evidence for Jews wishing to control the world? That they control the Media and Banks? Last time I looked most banks and media were listed companies (including 2 banks mostly owned by the taxpayer) or run by non-Jewish media tycoons.
Blowfly, our resident Inspector Pirouette continues to whirl about.
He is clearly limited literally, as well as literally limited.
"The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round."
Dowah diddy diddy dum diddydo
Dodo,
your in a good mood today, is this perhaps because you watched the volley beach ball team this morning?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Back to the article, I am surprised your bog standard Parish Vicar has time to do any of this. Shouldn't he be doing what Vicars aught be doing- i.e. looking after the spiritual well being of his flock, doing baptisms, Holy Communion, Preaching sermons, reading his Bible, Praying, Evangelising etc etc??
I am also surprised that the Bishop hasn't done more in respect of discipline. Is it because the Bishop secretly agrees with this guy? What would have happened if it had been directed towards Catholics or Muslims- one suspects he would have been heavily criticized by the Bishop.
None of this surprises me. Anglican vicars seem to be able to do whatever they want once they are in post. In my experience they can lie to their parishoners, apply canon law inconsistently (ie decide which unconfirmed candidates will be allowed to stand for the PCC and which not in the same election) and the bishop does not want to interfere in the internal matters of the parish. That experience is part of the reason why I now consider the church of England to be a sub-Christian sect and not a part of the Church.
Paul
Not my thing - half-naked women throwing themselves about about balls. (When is it next scheduled?)
I too wondered about the time Rev Sizler appears to have on his hands. He must either have a very small flock or is neglecting them.
*about after balls*
Before commenting on the rights and wrongs of this situation, I would like to establish some facts.
Is Rev Howard the same Nick Howard who is the son of Michael Howard, the previous leader of the Tory Party who is a Jew? I would say this materially affects the debate.
Is Rev Howard the same Nick Howard, who trained for ordination in the CoE at Cranmer Hall theological college in England but experienced difficulty in being ordained because of his strong orthodox views against those who would become his fellow priests.
Has Nick Howard, the son of Michael Howard, subsequently appointed as assistant minister to Christ Church, New York City – which is an open advocate of GAFCON and its Jerusalem Declaration? If this is so, the South East Gospel Partnership is also an open advocate of GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.
Therefore, I don’t understand the dynamics going on here between two advocates of the same cause, unless it be that Rev Howard is wishing to undermine an organisation that could have helped him to remain in the UK and minister here.
Is Rev Howard being totally transparent here?
Please refer to the following websites for back-up information.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/howards-son-tries-to-convert-oxford-jews-1145419.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407794/Michael-Howards-son-tells-liberal-Anglicans-thwarted-ambition.html
http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=511
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2011/12/27/rev-nick-howard-publicly-accuses-rev-stephen-sizer-antisemitism/
Beryl Polden, Wirral
The leadership of SEGP will not change their views ... look at who they are, and trace the links to Reform and associated groups. Many of them are in the social/educational/theological and gender group whose members are NEVER wrong. About anything. Ever.
This debate highlights the need for discipline, obedience, orthodoxy and unity. His Grace makes the claim that Dr. Sizer is using his position to undermine the basic tenets of Anglicanism. If so, then it fits the picture of what we see in other congregations. In the Catholic Church for example, we have an association of priests who have issued a call to disobedience against the Pope. We have had nuns arguing for women priests, homosexual priests, married priest, divorce and contraception. Perhaps many of your readers may agree with such a stance but I am sure they would also not be so dishonest to make such claims and remain within the fold of the Church. I feel it is a sign of the times – obedience is denigrated and the opinion of the individual exalted. If Christianity is to be strong again it will require obedience from believers and the exercise of legitimate authority by Church leaders. Unfortunately, bold and orthodox leadership is something that has been remarkably absent from the modern batch of Christian leaders in all denominations.
It is possible that Rev. Howard may have had more success in his approach to the Bishop of Guildford had been more tactful. Opening a communication to a senior official with an appeal that he suspend a junior is hardly likely to go down well in any organization, officials normally being loathe to being told how to exercise their prerogatives. Bringing the matter to his attention with an appropriate expression of concern (perhaps including concern as to how this undesirable behaviour would reflect badly on the image of the church and, particularly, on the diocese) and politely requesting that he look into the situation would not have immediately backed the Bishop into a corner and may have been more productive. If the response had not beeen satisfactory then that would be the time for a stronger tone.
Completely off topic - how about the Olympics Opening Ceremony? Her Majesty jumping out of a helicopter and arriving by parachute! Fantastic! Only Her Majesty could have got away with that. I'm somewhat surprised that HG didn't immediately comment on here about it.
1 st line s/r "had he been more tactful"
I have to say those links have only endeared me to Rev Howard.
However, I will observe that one may be entirely correct in one's doctrine and belief, and yet lack the agape that defines Christian witness. That said, going only on what he is reported as saying and doing, it is difficult to see how the man was doing anything except following Scripture.
I suspect he could have done with some tact in dealing with said liberal colleagues - but then, there is only so much tact to be had with people for whom "orthodox" is a dirty word.
Anonymous in Belfast,
But that is the point!
Rev Howard is NOT dealing with "liberal colleagues"!
The South East Gospel Partnership and Rev Stephen Sizer come from the same ultra-evangelical stable as Rev Howard i.e. the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans/GAFCON/Southern Cone supporting people.
Which makes me wonder what Rev Howard's motivation is for making this attack public?
Beryl Polden,
Wirral
AIB, the articles certainly offer an insight into the challenges facing all churches to resist conforming to the world.
Howard's views are right on orthodoxy and also on the Christian mission to the Jews. I'd say, he is unsuited to Anglicanism with its tradition of 'via media', ambiquity and compromise. Sensitivity and diplomacy are not one of Howard's strengths. A more authoritative and doctrinally structered church would have suited him much better. There are a few left.
I do find it interesting that a few years ago his missionary activities concerning the Jews led Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, executive director of the L'Chaim Society, a Jewish based organisation, described the mission activities as "spiritual Nazism" undertaken by "small-minded bigots."
What a world we live in!
He must look at the Church that rejected him accepting Sizler and simply despair.
The Bishop needs to do something ... soon!
Flame Radio
Are both members of CMJ (The Church's Ministry among Jewish people)?
Ps - what are all these orgnisations - Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, GAFCON, Southern Cone supporting people?
Dodo,
Looks like Dr Sizer is quite a big hitter which is why the Bishop won't do anything (from Wiki) :
"Sizer is a member of the Executive of the Guildford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship and a member of Guildford Diocesan Synod. He is a trustee and former chairman of the International Bible Society UK, publishers of the New International Version, the most widely read English Bible. He has served as an external examiner for post-graduate degrees (MPhil and PhD) awarded by the University of Wales through the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (OCMS), and Tyndale-Carey Graduate School, Bible College of New Zealand. He is a trainer for the Christianity Explored course and has visited Uganda and Kenya in this regard.
Sizer's other external positions relate to his interest in Peace in the Middle East and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a founding member of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism, a member of the Advisory Council of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, a Trustee of the Amos Trust and on the UK Board of Reference for the Mar Elias Educational Institutions in Ibillin, Galilee. He is also on the editorial board of Living Stones Magazine."
Also if you criticise him this could happen :
"On 29 November 2009, Joseph Weissman, a 23 year-old graduate student at Leeds University was visited by police officers at his home. Weissman had created a blog under the name "Seismic Shock" which had criticised Sizer's anti-Zionist views and alleged links to extremists. The police were acting on compaints of harassment made by Sizer and a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Dr Anthony McRoy. No legal action was taken against Weissman, but it was reported that he voluntarily removed the blog following the visit. News of the incident, referred to as "Sizergate" by some commentators, broke in January 2010 and rapidly spread throughout the blogging community. Sizer and McRoy were widely accused of censoring Weissman's views, but the Streisand effect raised awareness of the dispute between Sizer and Weissman to a far greater level than it previously had."
This comment has been removed by the author.
One other point is that having read about Sizer, who is editor of a magazine and has a PhD and is an academic alongside being a Parish Priest (see above), it seems strange that some-one who is immersed in research as well as being in a job that requires 'people skills' cannot actually research links on his own web pages. This isn't a naive person, but some one who is quite capable of researching sites and using his discernment about the nature of them.
And for an academic I would have thought this is essential to your job.
I remember as an undergraduate being told off by a lecturer when I had cited an argument of person X, but had the quoted material from person Y, rather than being from person X themselves. This is one of the things Sizer has done here (as he admits it on a blog post), which is a big booby of him to make given his academic background and MA/PhD supervising.
Sorry correction- Dr Sizer is not an editor as such, but sits on the editorial board of a magazine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your Grace,
For sake of balance to my earlier posts, there is one other matter not raised by Rev Howard and it is that from reading Dr Sizer's web page, via the link provided, it would appear Surrey police did investigate the allegations over the matter mentioned by Rev Howard (in this article) and found that there was no crime broken by Rev Sizer.
Hello, Hello, Hello, what is all this then, may I caution you at this point
Need I remind you that with a Frank Pledge I have powers not unlike one of Her Majesy's bobbies
This thread is beggining to look like an unlawful assembly, move along, move along!
If those attacking Dr Sizer on this matter can prove the claims they are making, then let them direct their venom at the site being displayed, not at the Dr chap who displays them
The site looks like satire to me purposely brought about by those opposed to Zionist Occupied Governments in the west
If those living under the jackboot of Zionism cannot use satire to have a pop at their oppressors, what can they do
Dr Sizer needs some support in his endeavours, Christian/Zionists will have to stomach the fact they have an opposition, until they prove they have any rights to occupy our Homelands and dictate what we can do
Evening all
Flame Radio
Perhaps it is precisely for the reasons he states: opposition to anti-Semitism. The only way I can conceive of someone not taking this view is if they consider Howard himself to be anti-Semitic on account of his past actions regarding evangelism of Jews. Taking all the evidence you posted in the round, my view was that this was a man who is not motivated by hatred but by genuine conviction in Christian orthodoxy, including a belief that adherents of other religions should actively be engaged with. Some liberals in the CofE may well see that orthodoxy as being tantamount to a form of hatred, but then again, many of those liberals will take a back-seat when it comes to responding to the likes of Stephen Sizer precisely because they so disparage orthodoxy.
I can see liberals being tied up in knots over this, and I can see those who are generally opposed to Israel (whether because of legitimate political difference, or indeed for anti-Semitic reasons) wanting to dismiss this, but I find it difficult to imagine who else would get confused about what the Christian response is to someone who publically promotes and produces material that treats Jewish people in a derogatory and paranoid fashion.
As I said, the very least I would expect is some pastoral intervention. That doesn't have to be made public or aired in the open - I have no need to demand show-trials. But the Bishop could have at least signalled that he himself was opposed to such material: all he says is that Sizer's views are "very different to [Howard's] own".
Lex non scripta we have to accept that there is ample evidence for our Folk Law in our Folk Land being in strong opposition to Jewish influences in Gentile affairs
Calling this anti-semetic or hate does not change our Folk Law
Evidence that there is a long history of such sentiment, yes. Evidence that there remains a core of people still convinced by it, yes.
Evidence that the opposition is proportionate to the "threat", no. Evidence that the said threat even exists, in many cases no.
"Folk Lore" is not ipso facto right - either in the sense of being correct, or morally sound. Pleading common consensus does not constitute a defence against a charge - it's merely a comment on the extent of the phenomena, and one where I'd dispute just how "common" the sentiments are.
"Folk Law" is am unwritten matter for the Folk of England
Given that we have historically seen star chamber courts in the past, operating privately against our will and star chamber courts today, operating privately against our will. The sound evidence contradicts your statement at29 July 2012 16:07
What you appear to be defending is the idea that a commonly-held opposition to Jewish intervention in civic matters is sufficient basis to dismiss (and invalidate) the accusations that Rev. Sizer has promoted anti-semitic material knowingly and intentionally.
Firstly, despite your referencing "sound evidence" you have, in fact, adduced no evidence whatsoever to your claims. It is impossible to assess just how accurate your claim to represent common opinion is.
Nor do we have any idea quite what constitutes "the Folk" - do you mean those holding British Citizenship? In which case there are surely a good number of Jews who might have a say. Or do you have a rather more limited view of the "Folk of England"?
Secondly, even if it is accepted that said common opinion exists, it does not have any direct bearing on the central issue at hand: whether it is appropriate for a minister to be promoting anti-semitic material, regardless of how widespread such sentiment may be. In that sense, your argument (per 14.23) is that definitions of anti-semitism or hatred are irrelevant so long as "Folk Lore" regards a view as being justified.
We can have a proper debate regarding what consistutes anti-semitism, and how it may be deduced - I am certainly not in favour of simply using epithets to close down discussion. But so long as your view is that an undefined commonality may choose to hold whatever views they like, without recourse to having to justify the evidence for such views, or without being answerable through any form of constitutional check or balance, then I'm afraid you're talking out of your backside.
At the outset of your latest comment, you make me out to be the defendant, which is correct, as with the right of subjection comes a duty of protection
Only then you go on to make out I am the claimant, well if all my incorporeal hereditaments lie in wait, why not claim them
Did not King Charles I attempt to close down the star chambers
Bred:
Your position can be broken down as follows:
1. Your claim that "Folk Lore" rejects Jewish interference in Gentile affairs.
To which I have asked on what basis the "Folk" is understood, and what evidence you have that this view is indeed shared by the "Folk" (assuming that the view is not in fact taken as a prerequisite for being a member).
2. Your general assertion that common belief constitutes a legal system.
I have some sympathy with the importance of consensus and custom to civic life. Generally, though I see it as a form of social practice - primarily evinced through social relationships. It's the difference between being generally self-governing (i.e. ordering ones affairs, solving disputes between neighbours, enjoying whatever cultural or religious observances might be desired) and requiring that every aspect of life be subject to a body of statutory legislation provided by the state.
Your use of the language of institutional law suggests you conceive of "Folk Law" as being commensurate to any other formal legal system in authority and structure. The difficulty with this position is that for that to be the case, it must be possible to discern rather more precisely what exactly this "Folk Law" is - in other words to have some form of codification distinct from, and independent of individual assertion.
As far as I can see, "Folk Law" in the sense that you assume it to be, must either be considered an oxymoron, wherein unwritten custom is falsely granted the same status as codified law, or alternatively a rather more pernicious argument for the tyranny of custom - wherein the lack of codification is itself the basis for providing an undefined group the legitimacy to basically do as it wishes, without check or balance.
All of which takes us on a tangent away from the point regarding whether or not it is appropriate for a minister of the Church to promote material predicated upon hatred of the Jews ("Oh how I hate these people" is, literally, one of articles on the website). In answer to your point about Star Chambers: just how does this question consitute an attempt by a cabal to impose punishment not on the basis of evidence but rather on the conviction of its members?
If anything - it is the material that Sizer linked to that does this by creating a culture in which any testimonial given by a Jew becomes a self-indictment when they admit to their identity.
Opposing star courts is best achieved by insisting on evidence, and not allowing preconceptions - whether "Folk Lore" or not - to take the place of rigorous and open investigation.
I have maintained from the start that "Folk Law" is Lex Non Scripa
The English Folk to be precise as to who we refer, have a Tradition going back into the mists of time before memory, to seek a more direct relations between the Great Commons and their Monarch
The history of a Folk manifests itself according to time and place and at various times and places throughout our history, it has been Customary for us to rise up against tryranny
The argument you make for our custom being a form of tyranny does not hold water
Sitting by the hearth were I have struck my staff, within these four walls where I live, my covert duties are not unlike those of a Magna Carta baron
Without such galantry sir from whence would we get heroic Folkloric tales like the story of David and Goliath, would there
A tale is a Tradition which has not been codified, yet is in the hearts and minds of Men
Very well argued, Mr AIB @ 20.10. Bravo!
There is no argument bluedog, just a failure to understand
The second cartoon above (the one with the cardboard cut-out is bang on the money; doesn't matter the source, it's spot on.
Mr Corrigan @ 21.59, would you be so kind as to oblige by giving a preview of your post following a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran?
Bone
Not an infrequent occurrance with you Sir, what!
Ah Bred, you old romantic. So it's the oxymoron then?
You're certainly in a long line of voices who have clamoured for "cutting out the middle-man" when it comes to political representation. Wat Tyler would be proud.
Of course, it's always worth remembering that our political institutions have arisen precisely out of the need for both codified law, and independent arbitration, by the very people who clamour for their periodic removal.
The tyranny I was writing about was not all custom - but rather of any custom elevated to an untouchable status. The law, for all its failings, is subject to review, and may be changed. An "unwritten law" of the like that you describe cannot - not because it is an elemental part of the people's nature, but because it is afforded such a status by people like yourself in order to avoid mechanisms of critique.
The problem is, that you will only ever afford that status to the interpretation of custom that you prefer, omitting as irrelevant what you disagree with, and including whatever changes you see fit. And who could argue with you - as there is no record (by definition), no "unwritten" constitution to which it might be compared.
From your original post, you consider an essential element of this "Folk Lore" to be "in strong opposition to Jewish influences in Gentile affairs". Do I take it then, you are harking back to the Middle Ages, with its expulsions, massacres and blood libels?
In which case, what of those true doughty English souls who the Chronicles record hid and protected the Jews from attack. Perhaps a literary writer like Richard of Devizes who wrote his 12th Century praise of England through the eyes of a French Jew, singling out Winchester for its enlightened tolerance of Jewish people, and declaring its inhabitants some of the best of the nation as a result? Or even Chaucer with his ironic portraiture of the anti-semitic Prioress (where's non-mouse when you need him)? We could mourn with William of Newburgh the murder of a Jewish 'eminent, humble physician, a worthy man and a friend of Christians' in a massacre in King's Lynn. Or deplore with Thomas Wykes the citizens of London 'forgetful of humanity and piety' who assaulted and murdered Jewish citizens in 1263, recognising with him that a true Englishman embodied mercy and courtesy, not murder and theft.
You cannot be referring to the modern age, where the seeds sown by Moseley bore so much less fruit than the seeds sown against him. Nor indeed of the working class man who so memorably told the blackshirts to leave off intimidating the Jews on his street "because they're our Yids!"
Our history has neither been one of perpetual virtue or perpetual villainy. We can summon up English shades to support almost any view - but what matters is which of them we summon as kindred spirits. I have no problem with romantically invoking Tradition, but there is more than one thread that might be woven into the tapestry we weave - a fact that simultaneously renews history as a source of inspiration, and forever puts paid to the delusion that custom is monolithic in its attitudes and beliefs.
The reverse is far more likely, bluedog. I presume you would be fine with that?
Damn right there Dodo
There are plenty on here willing to defend Jewish Tradition but too few defending Anglo Saxon Tradition
What! What!
Mr Corrigan @ 06.25, close, but no cigar.
A pre-emptive nuclear strike by Israel is unthinkable; it would be the last thing Israel ever did. A conventional attack by the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel and possibly Turkey may eventuate. At present it seems that attention is focussed on Syria, long an Iranian proxy. Disinfecting Syria from Iranian influence by replacing the Assad regime appears to be an important pre-condition to an Iranian adventure.
Oh come now Bred - I've just given you a host of examples as to why defending Jewish Tradition is precisely a part of Anglo-Saxon Tradition.
@marie1797:
classic jew-hater trope 1: the jews want to rule the world
classic jew-hater trope 2: jewish control of finance and media blah blah blah
classic jew-hater trope 3: reference to "orthodox rabbi weiss", who is of course a leading figure in the marginal anti-zionist group "neturei karta", you know, the guys who go to holocaust denial conferences in iran and stand at the front so that everyone can see that whoeveritistoday is not "anti-jewish", only "anti-zionist", because "look, here's a Real Jew With A Big Beard And One Of Those Black Hats" - everyone else in judaism despises these 10,000 morons. it's like bognor regis deciding to hate the rest of the UK.
@dodo the dude:
the "christian mission to the jews" is an insulting waste of time. feel free to keep at it though.
@bred in the bone:
classic jew-hater trope 4: use of the phrase "zionist occupied governments" - go on, google "zog", i dare ya.
classic jew-hater trope 5: use of the phrase "jackboot", because the israelis are just as bad as the nazis, dontcherknow.
classic jew-hater trope 5: tendentious over-use of the word "folk" in reference to the supposedly indigenous english. spell it "volk" and it's obvious how you actually think.
@aib:
interesting to hear about richard of devizes and william of newburgh, but the fact remains we were still expelled in 1290, so frankly i don't think the mediaeval english are going to win many prizes for the philosemitism. and as for the modern age, the hard-left/islamist alliance are doing their best to put us front and centre of the firing line once more.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Bananabrain:
You are quite correct, of course, to note the eventual outcome. As I said, I'd resist any attempt to cast England in the mould of perpetual virtue. There is no doubt that our history (both as a nation, and as a Church) provides us with a compelling reason to tread carefully when it comes to rehearsing criticism of Jews or Israel - precisely because our forebears share a large portion of the responsibility in creating the long history of anti-Semitism.
But I offered the examples that I did because I think it is important to counter the idea that one view has always been "innate" to the thinking of English folk. As I was trying to demonstrate, there is a conflicting theme of individuals who could not condone murder and hatred, and who stood up to it. And they weren't just isolated examples: they were part of a long-standing culture, which at various times extended from the monarch to the commons, of tolerance based on respect for the rule of law, and common humanity.
This is not uniquely or even particularly English - but it is there, and it is important to recognise that the same choice that confronts us today was faced by our ancestors: whether to engage in hatred, to refuse to see a perceived (or a real) enemy as a fellow human, or whether to refuse that mindset.
That's a choice that faces every one of us - including modern-day Israel.
@aib - well said, sir.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Bone
It wasn't meant as a compliment, old son. I rarely connect with what your saying - all a bit too New Age and cryptic for me, I'm afraid.
How Stephen Sizer maintains his position in the Anglican Church and uses it as a platform for his anti- semitic views is a mystery to me.
The man is a disgrace.
Bananabrain said ...
"@dodo the dude:
the "christian mission to the jews" is an insulting waste of time. feel free to keep at it though."
Actually its not a mission I'm involved in. I was referencing the 'Christian Misionary to the Jews', an alliance of protestant churches.
I'm interested in why you think this endeavour is "insulting". My father, an Orthodox Jew before converting to Catholicism, once explained to me, "A true Jew is a Christian", he said. Why would sharing this belief be an insult?
Perhaps you could explain.
@dodo:
i should start by saying that i am not suggesting that such statements should be banned or anything stupid like that. i think people should be free to be insulting and, of course, to take the consequences thereof. i honestly don't care if someone thinks i'm going to hell, unless they treat me differently or harm me as a result. one might think that christians had learned how stupid this point of view actually is, after all they've had over 2,000 years to think about it.
anyway: i think it's insulting because it indicates that people involved in it think their religion is preferable to ours, or that they have something that we need. this indicates ignorance, chauvinism and a patronising triumphalism, to say nothing of insecurity - why can't they deal with the fact that other people don't buy into their belief system? ours doesn't require everyone to convert to judaism; we believe that everyone has their own mission in the world.
without wishing to insult your father, he is essentially insulting me. a true jew is a jew. why would a true jew be anything else, unless judaism is in its essence untrue? you don't think that's an insulting thing to say? you do know, presumably, that this is precisely the argument that is made by the sort of intolerant islamist that thinks that the "people of the book" have no real existence since the advent of islam and that all the "real jews" are those who became muslims at the time, anyone subsequent now being merely an ethnic jew; thus, nobody who's still jewish is a "true jew", therefore all positive statements about "the people of the book" cannot be applied to modern jews - with obvious results. are you comfortable being in a group like that, which relies on doublethink and twisted logic?
i am aware of course that without an appreciable grasp of why your father converted, i am merely speculating as to why he should make such a manifestly idiotic statement, but i will confine myself to saying that some of our greatest enemies have been those who thought they knew the "inside dope" as it were - the names of tómas de torquemada, nicholas donin and pablo christiani, to say nothing of karl marx.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananabrain
I disagree that believing one's religion represents ultimate truth is insulting or shows ignorance, chavinism or is patronising triumphalism. What's the point of
having a faith if you don't believe it to be the ultimate truth?
Christianity is an evangelising religion with a direct instruction from Christ to spead His message; Judaism is not - it accepts converts but does not seek them out.
You took offence at the comment a true Jew is a Christian. I can understand this but it does not follow that Christianity must result in antisemitism or the aggression of Islam. And not all Christians believe Jews are heading for hell!
My core belief is that the covenant made to the Jewish nation through Moses were fulfilled and has been superceeded by Christ, the promised Messiah.
That's why my father converted, seeing Christianity as the fulfilment of Judaism. He never lost his respect for the Torah, for Jewish ritual and the struggle of the Jewish nation. However, he was not comfortable with modern pharisaical Judaism, with the authority shown the Talmud and was especially uncomfortable with Kabbalah mysticism.
And you're going back a bit with tómas de torquemada, nicholas donin and pablo christiani!
An interesting read, this, Your Grace. Not for me to wade into the doctrinal battles within your Church, though; but we have similar headaches, so I observe this kerfaffle with keen interest.
Interesting, as always, are the comments such happenings generate. With emotions stirred, people incline to honesty and expressions of the true self. I see that Corrigan, who is not of course an antisemite, but merely a valiant defender of the underdog "Palestinians" and a purely academic connoisseur of popular antisemitica, has now expanded his sphere of benevolent concern to Iran. Such a generous and caring fellow to care for the unloved mad mullahs of Tehran and Isfahan.
And what's up with Marie and her world-conquering Jews and sudden reverence for an unhinged Rabbi? Imagine, Jews to leave Israel! What about my retirement plans as a Winchester-wielding, Stetson-wearing cowboy on a cattle ranch in the Golan Heights or the Shomron hills? A kaffiyeh, a donkey and a Kalashnikov for me and my sheep herd? Has she been spending her Summer vacation knocking back Millers and discussing definitions of civilization with Louisiana trailer park philosophers? It's an educated guess, this, Your Grace, as last year I delivered a load of lumber to such a community and had to spend half the day there (incognito, with a Harley Davidson do-rag on my head, a mean stag horn-handled Bowie hanging off my belt to distract from the tzitzit tucked away into pockets) learnin' all about the dee-cline of West'n civ-laah-zay-shun with an astounding excursus into new epistemological approaches to Judaic studies and contemporary international affairs.
Just to clarify, Your Grace: My experience in that Louisiana trailer park was not typical. Most people in some of America's trailer parks I've come across are decent and smart folk either down on their luck, or burnt-out types like me who couldn't cope with the professional, academic or commercial rat races and are trying to keep at arm's length from this thing we all call "civilization."
Dodo, you're doing it again, this putting words into your opponents' mouths and tackling straw men of your own making. Bananabrain, who puts me to shame with his surgical precision and economy of words, did not challenge your right to believe that your "religion represents (the) ultimate truth," nor did he say that "Christianity must result in antisemitism or the aggression of Islam," even though he'd have a fair argument for the latter, given the lousy PR we get in Christian and Muslim scripture. And yes, it may be your right to feel that your religion is superior, but if you are going to strut about and criticise another one, be prepared for a nasty blow-back and take it like a man. Also, with religions like Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and such, the ones which do not challenge others, nor aggressively seek converts, universal rules of courtesy should apply and reciprocity is to be expected. Alas, this would leave you only with Islam as a legitimate target of evangelizing harrassment, but mainstream Christianity is too chicken to defend its own victims from the enthusiasm of the Religion of Peace, never mind to attempt to convert its adherents.
And bananabrain's "going back" to Donin, Christiani and Torquemada is relevant in that those are prime examples of the typical Jewish convert to Christianity to this day. It's my impression that most continue to be converts of convenience ...pressure, marriage, social aceptance or economic advancement being the main reasons. Many assuage their guilt and shame by trashing their former religion and even persecuting their old brothers and sisters. I'd suggest that you guys exercise better screening and quality control protocols on your "intake," but that might be interpreted as interference with the Volk and would upset Inbred Bones here, or whatever-his-name.
Having you and a few others advise us on what "true Jews" are or should be is, indeed, tiring and insulting, Dodo. A true member of any community anywhere in the world is rightly defined by the majority of that community, not by marginals, apostates or outsider busybodies. We don't go about lecturing you what a "true Christian" should be (not for a lack of opinions, believe you me), so please reciprocate.
And Dodo, true faith, I'll suggest, is in never knowing for sure about whether your beliefs are the "ultimate truth," but hanging on regardless.
@dodo:
i have no problem with you believing your religion is the ultimate truth for you, but don't see why that means it has to be the ultimate truth for me. i don't subscribe to the idea that i need salvation, or that my relationship with G!D depends on anyone but myself. i understand that christianity is an evangelising religion, but for me all evangelising or universalist religions are implicitly intolerant, in that they see something "deficient" (as i think the pope puts it) in the others, which can only be remedied by conversion. for me, this is where one loses the moral high ground, as it is impossible for humans to hold this position without our chauvinistic tendencies coming to the fore and, ultimately, to be coercive about that. if the history of christianity and islam tells us anything, it is that i am right about this leading with a tedious inevitability to oppression and death. it is manifestly clear supercessionist theology is a spiritual cul-de-sac - look at islam's response to the baha'i! that is *precisely* why judaism abandoned proselytisation 2,000 years ago.
as for your belief that "the covenant made to the Jewish nation through Moses were [sic] fulfilled and has been superseded by Christ, the promised Messiah", this is demonstrably untrue and, indeed self-contradictory. firstly, the covenant made to the jewish nation was made to the jewish nation, not to everyone. secondly, the Torah itself says that it will never be superceded - and it's supposed to be a sacred text to christians too: see genesis 13:15, exodus 3:15, 12:24, 19:9, 28:43, 29:28, 31:17, 32:13, leviticus 7:34, 7:36, 24:9, deuteronomy 5:29, 12:28, 13:16, 18:5, 29:29 for starters. the Torah is not overruled by the coming of the Messiah and, thirdly, jesus simply doesn't qualify under the halakhic conditions laid down for messiahship, as codified in maimonides' "hilkhot melakhim" in the mishneh Torah. if you wish to read in a fulfilment of various prophecies into jesus' life (and ignore the possibility that these were inserted by the authors of the NT precisely for that purpose, naturally) then feel free to do so. it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket - but don't ask me to concur and, furthermore, if you want to know what jews think, be prepared to be disappointed. i should point out, incidentally, that i have a lot of time for jesus as a teacher, preacher, radical and social reformer within the contemporary social context, but i don't see anything there that i need to deify, even were the notion less than nonsensical in a jewish context.
b'shalom
bananabrain
again, without wishing to insult him, i simply cannot understand why your father would take this view unless he was poorly taught or simply ignorant. sadly, this is not remotely uncommon even in the supposedly "orthodox". if he was uncomfortable with "modern pharisaical Judaism", then he is not alone; most jews, including myself, are unhappy with many things about the system, which we continue to wrestle with in an attempt to rectify wrongs and fight injustice. as for the "authority of the Talmud", this is something that all traditional jews acknowledge, although the better educated also recognise that the Talmud is hardly the last word on a subject - it is followed by the gaonim, the rishonim, the aharonim and subsequent legal authorities and codifiers. the point at which one departs from "orthodoxy", if you must term it that, is the point at which one refuses to accept the binding nature of halakhah and the obligation model that it underpins. again, it is hard to see how your father can have been "orthodox" if he did not accept these things. and with regard to kabbalah, i am simply astonished that he should find the mystical underpinnings of christian theology more consistent, integrated, human, logical or robust.
@avi barzel, thank you for your kind words of support, which are appreciated.
i do enjoy robust debate, incidentally, so nobody should feel afraid to say what they feel.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Avi
Frankly, I'd sooner converse with bananabrain who is less defensively aggressive than yourself and appears to have a better grasp of what I'm saying without responding with immature insults.
bananabrain
Thank you for your informative and helpful reply. I will respond when I have considered your points.
Right, Dodo, when you're stumped, you suddenly need to "consider points" and become too fragile to deal with what your social worker's quackery dubs as "defensive aggressiveness." Ok, all the same to me.
No need to thank me, bananabrain, the way you crystallize issues Ive been tap-dancing around is a breath of fresh air for me. Your, "if you want to know what jews think, be prepared to be disappointed," rings a disquieting warning. The possibility...or inevitability...of the old Great Disappointment is a topic that has occuppied a number of shabbat dinner conversations in our home. It hangs over us like the sword of Damocles....we're stumped, like Dodo is over whatever, and need to consider the points. So, yes, what happens when all the friendship and support we and our little nation state are being showered with today by a smallish, but signifiant number of Christians do not lead us to accepting the Christian message? What if in spite of hints, gentle invitations and subtle threats we continue to remain true Torah Jews in the Pharisaic-Rabbinic mainstream? As before, many of our coreligionists will quietly slip off the wagon and blend in with the crowd,perhaps to be dealt with decades or centuries later, and I'm guessing that there will be plenty of good Christians who will remain friends, but how strong are they? They too will perhaps become targets and victims of the zealots, as it has happenned before so many times. The triumphalism and supercessionism you and I worry about are not marginal stages or technicalities, of course; they are core doctrines indelibly written into the very in DNA of both Islam and Christianity. We remain mindful of the fact that the only reason why Jews, moderate Christians and other religions enjoy freedoms today is because the Church lacks the temporal power to coerce and secularism hasn't attained full supremacy. A condition of a "balance of powers," or Mutual Assured Destruction. We're now in an age where, funnilly eough, Jews and Christians find themselves in a life raft together, clinging on to each other as the waves of an increasingly Pagan movement we call secular modernity tries to sweep us off from side, while a militant and resurgent Islam tries board our plank to lob off our heads. If the self-defined "secularism" or Islamism win, we'll likely all swing from the same gibbet together, but if they lose, will a once again dominant Church forget its historically brief blip of humility and tolerance acquired in its days of weakness and turn on us, on our few friends and on what it considers its own heretics? Inquiring minds want to know!
Avi
I agree bananaman is able to "crystallize issues Ive been tap-dancing around is a breath of fresh air".
The rest of your post simply demonstrates the accuracy of my earlier observation about you - except its self indulgent too.
Ha ha ha aha ha!
bananaman
To deal with questions about my father first.
My father never shared with me the full reasons for his conversion. He was neither "poorly taught nor "ignorant", I can assure you. He was Torah trained from childhood and was a wise and well read man.
Modern pharisaical Judaism" for him dated centuries ago when, according to his view, the Talmud became equal with scripture. I know he did not accept Moses was given an oral law by God which was passed down the generations and eventually written down after the Second Temple ended. It wasn't about rectifying wrongs and fight injustice. The various interpretations and authorities you cite were no doubtknown to him too.
So far as the written law given to Moses Christians accept these but not all the Levitical requirements.
You willknow the influence of the Kabbalah goes way beyond the mystical writings of the Doctors of the Christian Church. As an example I would cite both the Talmud and Kaballah's statements about the Foundation Stone, the Well of Souls and the Holy of Holies.
My father was shunned by his family, he became dead to themto him and they never spoke with him again. This was a source of great personal sorrow and despite the prejudicial picture painted by Avi, he did not turn antisemitic or become a vociforous critique of Judaism in my presence or publically, so far as I am aware. He lived his life quietly and stoically and raised his family in his new found faith.
Avi
Just a few points for you to ponder.
According to Christian history, the Jewish authorities initially persecuted the Jewish-Christian sect. The first martyr was Saint Stephen - stoned to death for blasphemy.
Evil is evil and all individuals and religions are capable of it.
Gentlemen,
If I may say, this is a refreshing series of exchanges which is the sort I would like to see all of us getting back to on this blog. It is stimulating and intellectually challenging. I am on the sidelines here as I want to read what is being said and make my own personal judgement ... but please keep going as it is useful to the silent reader.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miss/Mrs/Ms Hannah Kavanagh,
His Grace has a very, very high patience threshold. But Yr5 illiteracy is not within his bounds. Unless you wish to be barred, please learn the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.
Hannah,
Glad to hear it, then people will see what a capable and intelligent person you really are, rather than this false 'dizzy girl' persona you project here.
Your Grace,
Shalom to you as well!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ah, you can't help yourself, can you Dodo? Can't bear being left out when the plot thickens.
First of all, I don't recall commenting directly about your father. You brought him into the discussion. I never met him and all I know is what you recall and what you choose to tell me. I have no intent to insult anyone's parent. It's not cricket, as you people would say. My observation, enriched by my past and present activism and by being plugged into the Jewish community and its informal information networks, is that the majority of Jewish converts to Christianity (and to this I should add, most Christian conversions to the liberal denominations of Judaism) occur for practical purposes, primarily due to marriage, since religious affiliation plays a minor role nowadays where social mobility is concerned. I'm sure there are exceptions to that.
As for your father's treatment by his family, shunning is the only method families and groups can use for effect. Your father's family did what every Orthodox Jewish family should do, although many are more lenient, especially where children are concerned. We are a minority that has been and continues to be under pressure, while at the same time the centrifugal forces of modernity continue to wittle us down. Shunning and cutting off apostates from family and community are our only means to slow down the process and I would not apologize for it. That being said, I have no idea whether I would have the resolve to follow through the custom of shunning an apostate who is my close kin, may G-d forbid such a tragedy.
If you are asking me to accept that "evil is evil and all individuals and religions are capable of it," I won't disagree with that. Capability is not the issue, though; formalized, systematic, intense, intentional and and well-documented hostility and violence is.
I'm aware of incidents of true inter-communal aggression, where groups of Jews fought among themselves; Hellenists, Romanizers, Rabbanites, Karaites and Christians. Such are aluded to in our "histories" as well. I know enough, though, not to fully trust either Jewish or Christian chroniclers to provide factually accurate accounts of that period. Historiography was not a recognized science and there are few surviving documents of the era in question. The Christian hagiographies, where such charges stem from, are only marginally useful to us; they were in essence pietistic and propaganda pamphlets composed for religious purposes. Show me modern, mainstream historiographical evidence of Jews persecuting Christians in a systematic way and we'll chat then. Something tells me that you won't be able to find such, because in the first three or four centuries Christians were fully Jews and non-Christian and Christian Jew would not have turned to organized violence, since it would have been brother against brother. After that, Christians made the Pharisees, their enemies, the baddies, white-washed the Romans, opened the flood gates to Pagan conversion by removing requirements for circumcision and dietary laws and after Constantine, went after Pagans and Jews with the sword.
Uh, oh, His Grace is around; everyone get your acts straight. And he's not only reading our stuff, he's marking it too. And I can't stop my self from the crime of starting a sentence with an "and."
Avi
And Dodo, true faith, I'll suggest, is in never knowing for sure about whether your beliefs are the "ultimate truth," but hanging on regardless.
This is a hopelessly anthropocentric view of faith. The fact that a man expresses faith means nothing at all. A man can have faith in a head of cabbage for all the good it will do him. He receives nothing for his faithfulness. It is rather the object of his faith that is important.
A man may walk onto a sheet of foot-think ice with fear and trembling, or he may walk onto one-quarter inch of ice with complete confidence. The faith of the first man small though it may be will be rewarded. The great faith of the second will be shown futile. In neither case does the man's faith influence the ice to which he trusts his life.
carl
@avi barzel:
i certainly think the so-called "christian zionists" are mostly fair-weather friends and in many cases the sort of people whose presence on one's side makes one question whether one is on the right side at all. i also agree that once they get fed up with asking nicely, it will be back to "damnation as usual". however, i cannot conclude that this is the only possible outcome. it is likewise true that not all christians subscribe to theological supercessionism. personally, i expect that most of them will sooner or later grow out of it and not before time; there is no need for us to be wrong for them to be right for themselves. i may differ from you and others in extending this to islam; certainly, if i believed that supercessionism was "indelibly written into the very in DNA" of both christianity and islam i would not bother with interfaith dialogue. my experience of real-life christians and muslims would rather indicate otherwise, although i am anything but a bleeding-heart liberal or moral relativist. on the other hand, there is something to be said for your image of jews caught between the scylla of supercessionist faith on one hand and militant anti-religion on the other. i am extremely reluctant to find myself in common territory with people who can't deal with science. it therefore falls to people like myself to maintain by personal example a space where people of faith and reason can maintain both tradition and rationality and demonstrate that a religious lifestyle is entirely compatible with liberal democracy, ethical conduct and the proper application of scientific method. nobody ever said this was going to be easy.
b'shalom
bananabrain
@dodo:
if your father never shared with you the full reasons for his conversion, than i hardly think you are in a position to assume it made sense from a jewish point of view. i do not wish to criticise your father's learning or wisdom, but without further insight, it simply does not make sense to me. it is extraordinarily rare for someone who actually knows something about judaism to leave it unless they have suffered some trauma inflicted by the system - perhaps misconduct or abuse by someone in a position of authority, perhaps reasonable questions that were answered inadequately, or with insults or deflections, perhaps love or failure to find it; this is not unusual, unfortunately. but wholesale conclusion that judaism is best served by becoming christian - this is, i would suggest, is unprecedented, compared to adopting a less traditional form of judaism, becoming areligious or atheist, which is extremely common, particularly in cases where one objects to the primacy of talmudic learning.
in particular i cannot see how his objections to Divine Revelation through moses are compatible with christianity, which in all cases that i am aware of (unless you're john shelby spong or the like) views judaism as certainly having been true at one point. as for it not being about "rectifying wrongs and fighting injustice", i struggle to understand how anyone could think that was not a primary concern of the talmudic sages; i can give you any number of examples of their ethical and moral concerns to "do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with G!D".
there are of course anomalies and exceptions to every rule, but without any information, informed orthodox jew to christian simply does not compute. i can't envisage what possible reasoning might lead one to draw such a conclusion.
your comment that "the written law given to Moses Christians accept these but not all the Levitical requirements" has never made sense to me. the written law includes all the levitical requirements - on what basis is this distinction made?
wrt kabbalah, i know precisely where its influence goes - and, indeed, for many christians, they can, unsurprisingly find in it a basis for their faith. however, i cannot see how it would lead one to abandon judaism - and i speak as one who studies these matters and has found in them the deepest relationship with the Divine that i have ever had the privilege of experiencing; i should add that, through music, christian, muslim, hindu and buddhist approaches have also been signposts on this particular path.
it is very sad when such matters tear a family apart and i sincerely hope that none of my children would ever become apostates; i would take that as the severest indictment of my own actions, principles and example. by the time it happens, of course, it is already too late.
b'shalom
bananabrain
@carl jacobs:
hopelessly anthropocentric? i know G!D Is Fab and all that, but what is faith without the human believer? we have a concept - "G!D in search of man" - that expresses this beautifully; the Voice of the Beloved knocks, we seek Who our soul loves, but within the G!DSpace, without the lover, the Beloved might as well not Be.
the word for "faith" in judaism is EMuNaH, from which we get the word "amen", which is an acrostic of the phrase E-L, MeLeKh NeEMaN - G!D, Trustworthy King. "faith" in judaism is *trust* - ie "faith" *that*, not faith *in*. there are in my view, as per maimonides, only 13 things which require this level of trust; you can see these in the standard formulation of his 13 principles of which, again in my view, most people don't really understand the purpose.
we *hope* and trust that these things are true, we struggle, we hold fast to the possibility that they may be - and, while we wait to find out, we do what we must to fulfil what we trust to be the Divine Will.
faith is not a question of what we believe about G!D which is, by definition, hopelessly inadequate and limited. it is a question of what we believe we should do as a result.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Partially right you are, Carl, mine maybe an "anthropocentric view of faith," but why "hopelessly"? The Holy One, being allpowerful and all seieeing clearly doesn't need faith to function, and animals and plants and angels are just programmed to tick on. Faith is, of course, a human function, whose definition, in my traditions, is closer to its original etymology in English as well, namely "firm loyalty," rather than "belief."
It goes without saying that faith in a head of cabbage or in the ability to violate laws of physics with consistency would be folly. It's a clear given that faith is to be applied to an authentic religious "object," so of course, it's the, "object of [Man's] faith that is important." Why go through all this trouble to establish the obvious, though, unless you're nudging towards a warning about relying on "works" alone?
So allow me to guess wildly and go on an excursus; "works," or as we would call them fulfilment of specific, time and action-bound commandments have many purposes, and one of which would be to strengthen our faith...or loyalty...to G-d, our communiies and our worldly mission. For morning prayers you actually have to wrap kosher phylacteries, don a prayer shawl with the right number of knots and perform the proper prayers in the right order for the whole thing to "count." If you dont have the acoutrements with you, you can't just use your imagination, wrap a starter cable around your head and left arm, throw a beach towel over your head and proceed. You can't just imagine certain requirements, and pretend you've done your duty.
Obviously, G-d's well-being doesn't depend on my wrapping my self up in leather straps, but I'm told that my, my Covenant, and authenticity do. Unlike some of my Christian colleagues who break into intense prayer only when moved, which they confess can be rare when busy with work, kids and the deer hunting season, I have to perform such "works" without excuses, no matter how inspired or uninspired I feel that day, or whether I have to reschedule appointments, interrupt "extremely important" events or pull off the highway and get a chew-out by the client for being late. The physical commitment to such "works" is one definition of faith/loyalty and how well one fulfills his obligations ffectively becomes an empirical test of one's faith. The end result is that I fulfill a specific request by G-d, and as basic laws of statistics would have it, frequency and volume significantly increase those times when prayer brings that moving intensity and connection to the Almighty. Just a different opinion, Carl, and a different approach. Works for us and we've been around longer than you :)
You just pulled me into a theological disputation I really shouldn't be getting into, Carl. Shame on you, for laying such juicy temptations before my eyes when you should know by now how I struggle to resist shmaltz herring with onions and a good gab-fest.
By the way, I did read an interesting politics-related comment of yours you wrote last week, I think, and will try to find get back to you on that. It's not that I didn't value it, its just that things have been hectic for me lately.
Bananabrain, obviously this may not apply to all Christian groups, but I do believe...and many in the Haredi community believe so as well...that the majority of Christian Zionists are genuine and they, at least, will not "turn on us." Recall the turn and the beginning of our new century, with the "intifadah" and its bombs, the universal "criticism" of Israel by all the media and the political mainstream, and the nearly miraculous appearance of millions of Zionist Christians, many of whom went as far as to bring themselves and their children to a shell-shocked Israel in a statement of faith and an attempt to keep our tourism economy going. Let's face it, their presence is all that keeps the Obamanoids from wrapping us up and delivering us to the Muslims with the UPS guy. Their activism and influence have now managed to sway the mainstream Churches as well, a process which may or may not be permanent. It is a genuine concern that this Golden Age may end, but not because of our existing friends turning on us.
As for the science debate, I see it more as a cultural struggle against state imposition of beliefs and values than as a science-based conflict. As a "creationist-evolutionist" and a fan of R' Nathan Slifkin (worth a look), I hold different views from many in the Evangelical sector, and even among our literalist Hareidi, but such differences are not crucial to me.
Interfaith dialogue may be important, but it's still a function of the prickly Judaic, Christian and Islamic troika trying to coexist in an increasingly multi-national, multi-cultural and economically co-dependent secular world. I've noticed it works only among moderates and then only when mutual gains can be expected. Yeah, true, no one said it's gonna be easy.
Avi
By the way, I did read an interesting politics-related comment of yours you wrote last week, I think, and will try to find get back to you on that. It's not that I didn't value it, its just that things have been hectic for me lately.
That's OK. When people ignore my coments, I just remember that kings and princes hang on my every word. ... Well, OK. My wife and children hang on my every word ... The house cat! The house cat hangs on my every word ...
[Sigh]
carl ;)
Who has had a busy week himself and so didn't really feel like exerting himself by writing serious posts over lunch - so he perused ESPN instead.
Ya know. I was GREATLY disappointed to discover that Olympic Soccer doesn't involve the real National teams.
Not to worry, Carl, the Almighty hears every word of yours. But don't sweat it too much. If I were you, I'd worry more about succumbing to soccer mania and gratuitously insulting shmaltz herring.
bananabrain said ...
"if your father never shared with you the full reasons for his conversion, than i hardly think you are in a position to assume it made sense from a jewish point of view."
Of course it could never make sense from a Jewish point of view! He discovered Jesus Christ through his understanding of Judaism. How could you accept thsi?
"it is extraordinarily rare for someone who actually knows something about judaism to leave it unless they have suffered some trauma inflicted by the system - perhaps misconduct or abuse by someone in a position of authority, perhaps reasonable questions that were answered inadequately, or with insults or deflections, perhaps love or failure to find it; this is not unusual, unfortunately."
No, there was no trauma or abuse.
"but wholesale conclusion that judaism is best served by becoming christian - this is, i would suggest, is unprecedented, compared to adopting a less traditional form of judaism, becoming areligious or atheist, which is extremely common, particularly in cases where one objects to the primacy of talmudic learning."
Christianity started with such conversions from Judaism - so not that unprecedented.
"your comment that "the written law given to Moses Christians accept these but not all the Levitical requirements" has never made sense to me. the written law includes all the levitical requirements - on what basis is this distinction made?"
Let's park this oneas I'm sure youdoknow the reasoning given by Christians.
You skipped over the 'oral law' supposed given to Moses that eventually became written.
Tell me, do you accept the mystical and Torah based ideas of the Foundation Stone, the Well of Souls and the Holy of Holies? That sprinkling animal blood annually with a High Priest saying the name of God somehow achieves a cosmic benefit for the Jewish nation?
@avi:
well, many haredim believe some totally mad things. and a lot of them have in the past bought into, for the sake of argument, the messiahship of shabbetai tzvi and the lubavitcher rebbe.... i wouldn't bet the farm on this one, particularly as push clearly hasn't come to shove for the christian zionists. i must say i think things have come to a pretty pass when jews are relying on people who think that the ultimate purpose of jews is to be mostly murdered and then converted. but then again, most of the people who believe that christian zionists are helping them for the same reasons that they think they are getting the help are not exactly keen on finding out much about what makes their supporters tick...
as for your comment about "obamanoids", that's the sort of partisan remark that sounds mad to anyone who isn't american. the paranoia, the obsession with mooslims under the bed, deary me. american grand strategy remains as it has been since the 1940s and the geopolitical realities are far less threatening to the US than you appear to realise. even the saudis or iranians are at most regional hegemons; the only serious players are the turks and they won't be in a position for decades to actually move back up the power ladder. jihadis may be scary, but they are a spent force; all they have achieved is to perpetuate the idea of the middle east outside israel as a region that resists innovation, new ideas and change. why do you think the true arab entrepreneurs and innovators amongst the palestinians, egyptians, syrians, lebanese and iraqis work in their diasporas? ditto the iranian exiles. the place is educationally and scientifically backward in terms of patents, book publishing, technology and r&d - which are rapidly making oil power obsolete.
i'm also a fan of rav slifkin, although i was appalled to pick up what i felt were kahanist sympathies at one point; but on matters of intra-jewish relations, he is peerless. wrt interfaith dialogue, it is about more than the abrahamic faiths. obviously, there is a "moderate's island" issue, but even people who don't come to the table are affected by those who do.
b'shalom
bananabrain
@dodo:
if "it could never make sense from a Jewish point of view", then clearly that is in conflict with the idea that christianity is required by judaism. and even if he "discovered Jesus Christ through his understanding of Judaism", that does not make it by definition correct. people make mistakes and, as mistakes go, this is a big one. i don't expect we can reach agreement on this.
"No, there was no trauma or abuse."
how do you know if he didn't talk about it? people have to have a strong *reason* to depart from their upbringing and background and family. the case you describe is so unlikely as to be tantamount to unbelievable, unless we are missing some vital data.
"Christianity started with such conversions from Judaism - so not that unprecedented."
hmmm. no, it started with, from our perspective, a false messiah, who people started to believe in, but who failed in his mission (if such it was) thus compelling people to rationalise why that was possible. that was all still jewish until they started coming up with crazy theological justifications like incarnation and salvation from original sin; you can actually see this happening in two other famous cases of false messiahs, namely shabbetai tzvi and the lubavitcher rebbe, where their devastated and confused followers, desperate to explain it all, came up with, respectively, the idea that "the messiah had to become muslim in order to carry on his mission in secret, to provide an anagogue to rescuing the holy sparks from the abyss" and "the messiah has gone into [temporary] occultation from which he will shortly return and save us", the latter being a strategy adopted by the twelver shi'as after the disappearance under suspicious circumstances of their imam. people would rather believe in a story like that than that they got such an important thing so totally wrong. an instructive counter-example here is that of rabbi aqiba coming out in support of bar kokhba/ben koziba as messiah, up until the point where his revolt's failure made it impossible for this to be argued, at which point his qualification was withdrawn. and the mass appeal of christianity came from paul's brilliant piece of innovation whereby the benefits of judaism were extended without the inconveniences of circumcision and dietary laws, thus appealing to the something like 10% of the roman empire's population that were already adopting some level of jewish practice. he saw a market and crafted his product superbly to meet its needs. however, neither of these cases translates into a logical progression from normative judaism to christianity.
b'shalom
bananabrain
"You skipped over the 'oral law' supposed given to Moses that eventually became written."
why should that be cause to leave judaism for christianity? it makes no sense.
"Tell me, do you accept the mystical and Torah based ideas of the Foundation Stone, the Well of Souls and the Holy of Holies?"
i can't answer that without knowing precisely what you are implying that these ideas mean; i mean, i know what i think about them, but i don't see what's remotely christian about any of them, other than the old chestnut about jesus being the "stone that the builders rejected", when of course it's clear that verse refers to qeneseth yisrael, the community of israel.
"That sprinkling animal blood annually with a High Priest saying the name of God somehow achieves a cosmic benefit for the Jewish nation?"
well, it's all about the "somehow", isn't it? look, i can accept that the Temple cultus could turn people off orthodox judaism, no problem, but i can't accept that therefore logically christianity must be right. besides, you clearly believe that the shedding of the blood of a talented preacher somehow achieves a cosmic benefit for all of humanity - if one is ridiculous, than i don't see how the other isn't.
i think i'm starting to hypothesise what might have gone on - your father may well have been exposed to some of the more mind-bending concepts in jewish mysticism and not been able to handle them, perhaps due to lack of maturity (no insult intended - how old was he when this happened) or simply inadequate teaching and spiritual guidance - this is the one of the dangers learned from the story of the four who ascended to PaRDeS; your father certainly "mutilated the shoots". or perhaps this is an instance of mistaking shining marble for water? clearly, it wouldn't be the first time *that* has happened and that, at least, i wouldn't find hard to believe.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananabrain
You must get over this simple notion that it is somehow irrational toconvert from Judaism to Christianity. It is a somewhat elitist and pompous position to adopt. In a stroke you are accusing the founders of Christianity of irrationality.
My father simply discovered God through His Son, Jesus Christ, the long awaited Jewish Messiah. No doubt a whole range of human reasons played their part - not least of which his learning and wisdom.
Now,I didn't say my father left Judaism because of the Talmud. However, he regarded these writings as uninspired and the work of men dressed in the clothing of a myth about being spoken to Moses and passed down orally. I asked how you viewed them and if you see them as on a par with the Torah.
My question about the Foundation Stone was not about Christ. It was about the nature of reality the Talmud and Kallabala ascribe to this site in Jerusalem.
"i know what i think about them" - so tell me!
"i can accept that the Temple cultus could turn people off orthodox judaism, no problem, but i can't accept that therefore logically christianity must be right."
Why would it lead people to question Judaism. I mean, isn't it the driving force behind religious Zionism?
"besides, you clearly believe that the shedding of the blood of a talented preacher somehow achieves a cosmic benefit for all of humanity - if one is ridiculous, than i don't see how the other isn't."
Except a Christian believes one is consistent with written scripture - that the atonement was for all mankind and that the awaited Messiah came to establish a spiritual Kingdom and not an earthly one.
And you've reduced Jesus to a talented preacher"? He most certainly was not viewed that way in His time, was He?
Given what you've said earlier about my father, are you implying Jesus turned on the Judaism of His time because of irrationality, or poor instruction or someform of family trauma? You have read what He said about the religious leaders of His time and know the outcome of this?
"this is the one of the dangers learned from the story of the four who ascended to PaRDeS; your father certainly "mutilated the shoots". or perhaps this is an instance of mistaking shining marble for water? clearly, it wouldn't be the first time *that* has happened and that, at least, i wouldn't find hard to believe."
You really think my father's experience of searching for God resulted in him becoming a heretic or spiritually confused? How open minded of you. Personally, and sticking to the Talmudic version and not the more fanciful Kaballah one, I think he "entered in peace and left in peace".
>You must get over this simple notion that it is somehow irrational to convert from Judaism to Christianity. It is a somewhat elitist and pompous position to adopt.
and telling me that a "true jew is a christian" isn't? sorry, dude, but it seems extremely irrational to me and you haven't really provided any reason for me to think otherwise. i've provided you with any number of cases where people a) leave traditional judaism b) leave "progressive" judaism, but since the advent of the latter, there hasn't really been a reason to leave judaism for christianity; the time has passed when conversion was the price of civil rights in christian countries. disaffection with orthodox judaism either results in defection to progressive judaism or defection to cultural/secular judaism; without the possibilities i mentioned, which you refuse to contemplate, i simply can't see it. that's all i'm saying.
>In a stroke you are accusing the founders of Christianity of irrationality.
no more than they accuse me of being "legalistic", "pharisaical", "stiff-necked", etc. what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. honestly, you'd think people had learned by now. we're not impressed by the New Improved Product. we weren't impressed by the early church (much), we weren't impressed by islam, we weren't impressed by the reformation or, in many cases, the enlightenment. we are a bunch of difficult bastards - even G!D Says so. look - if i thought christianity made sense to me, i'd be a christian. if i thought islam made sense to me, i'd be a muslim. i don't - i think judaism makes sense to me, so here i remain. if you want to believe it, go ahead.
b'shalom
bananabrain
>My father simply discovered God through His Son, Jesus Christ, the long awaited Jewish Messiah.
except that he wasn't the jewish messiah, for the simple reason that he doesn't fit the halakhic criteria, quite apart from the fact that incarnation is entirely redundant.
>No doubt a whole range of human reasons played their part - not least of which his learning and wisdom.
no doubt, but you're asking me to assume a whole bunch of stuff which i have no reason to assume.
>Now,I didn't say my father left Judaism because of the Talmud. However, he regarded these writings as uninspired
i presume that you mean "inspired" in the revelatory sense, in which case i would respond that there's no need in traditional judaism to believe that they were "inspired" - only that they were binding.
>and the work of men dressed in the clothing of a myth about being spoken to Moses and passed down orally.
look, there is a lot more in the talmud than "myth". if you study it, you realise that you're eavesdropping on a conversation not entirely like one on a web forum or blog. we learn from its study how to *think* in the right way.
>I asked how you viewed them and if you see them as on a par with the Torah.
Torah outranks anything in terms of authority, but human authority to interpret, the basis of talmudic authority, is itself a Torah commandment - see deuteronomy 30:11-14.
>My question about the Foundation Stone was....about the nature of reality the Talmud and Kallabala ascribe to this site in Jerusalem.
i don't entirely understand the question. what are you getting at? the idea that this was the spot from which the world was created? what's wrong with that? it's an aggadic, speculative belief and, as such, one is free to adopt whatever reasonable position is available. it's not like a halakhic position.
>Why would it lead people to question Judaism. I mean, isn't it the driving force behind religious Zionism?
no. the driving force behind religious zionism is the commandment to live in israel, which allows you to observe more of the commandments than elsewhere, as well as the idea that all jews need to live in israel for the messiah to come. the idea that the Temple should be rebuilt some day is common to all traditional forms of judaism as per maimonides' 13 principles, but it is by no means entirely clear that that would necessarily mean the return of the sacrificial cult - as it says in hosea, "we shall substitute for bulls with our lips".
>Except a Christian believes one is consistent with written scripture - that the atonement was for all mankind
yes, but i don't believe that the scripture means that, because firstly i don't interpret the genesis story the same way as you do (i.e. no ioriginal sin) and secondly i believe that the "suffering servant" is the community of israel, not the messiah; the OT is aimed at us.
>and that the awaited Messiah came to establish a spiritual Kingdom and not an earthly one.
b'shalom
bananabrain
yes, well, if he doesn't establish an earthly one, he isn't the messiah - q.e.d.
>And you've reduced Jesus to a talented preacher"? He most certainly was not viewed that way in His time, was He?
there's no contemporary documentation that indicates that he had anything like the impact or fame christians would expect to find - he's just been bigged up in retrospect to make him seem more influential than he was, although i appreciate why that would be done; look at the doctoring of josephus! at the time, there were a bunch of different apocalyptic and political leaders vying for attention; he made himself just enough of a nuisance to get himself executed by the romans, the poor bloke, just like thousands of other jews. i sympathise, but i simply don't see him as particularly special.
>are you implying Jesus turned on the Judaism of His time because of irrationality, or poor instruction or someform of family trauma?
remember, at the time, there were several judaisms, between the groups mentioned in josephus and a host of other hellenistic, apocalyptic, folk and political groups and sects. judaism didn't really get re-unified until the yavneh period, although there was still an unbroken chain of tradition that stretched back to the days of 'ezra and the "great assembly". we're a quarrelsome bunch, as i've said - that is why the sages said that the second Temple was destroyed because of "causeless hatred". there was plenty of corruption and other bad stuff for him to object to, just as the sages objected to in our writings and is apparent from josephus and other historians. as for poor instruction, he seems to have concluded that it wasn't necessary to wash before eating (which would have been controversial to say the least) as well as healing minor hurts and picking corn on Shabbat (which would have really upset people). as for "family trauma", i dare say it would be a bit hard to get away with maintaining that your mum was a virgin, which was why your dad wasn't really your dad..."oh, it was G!D? reaaaaaaalllly."
>You have read what He said about the religious leaders of His time and know the outcome of this?
religious schmeligious - if you upset the romans, see what it gets you. we certainly found that out.
>You really think my father's experience of searching for God resulted in him becoming a heretic or spiritually confused?
well, if he became a christian as a result, i'd say that was pretty obvious.
>Personally, and sticking to the Talmudic version and not the more fanciful Kaballah one, I think he "entered in peace and left in peace".
except that rabbi aqiba didn't become an apostate. as for the kabbalistic version (you mean interpretation, as it's the same version) being "fanciful", it is no more fanciful than the idea that G!D needed to die for humans to be forgiven for sex being needed in order for us to be born.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananaman
Interesting response and ridicled with misperceptions and misrepresentations of Christ and of Christians.
I shall respond when I have digested the content.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ah, put the comments on wrong thread- sorry for interrupting the flow!
Post a Comment
<< Home