HOD declares parts of the New Testament Anti-Semitic

Just asking, is there supposed to be just a title to this thread, as I don’t see any text other than the title.

oops, see the video now. Feel like a fool.

TEC is now more PC than JC.

“But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles . . . I Cor. 1:23

I’ve noticed that the NT isn’t too favorable towards non-Jewish people either.  One could almost say it’s anti-Gentile as well.

#5:  Not to mention being patriarchically judgmental about gender-orientation minorities. . . . 

Yeah, and the liberal loonies have no problem with inviting Ahmadinejad to talk at the National Cathedral and supporting Hamas. Let’s not be anti-Semitic, but we don’t have any problems with people that want to wipe Israel off the map.

Amazing - here is the relevant part of resolution A089

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention direct the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to continue to collect, develop and disseminate materials that assist members of the Church to address Christian anti-Judaism expressed in and stirred by portions of Christian scriptures and liturgical texts, including the preparation of a pamphlet explaining Christian anti-Judaism and ways to address it in teaching, evangelism, and congregational life; the development of age-appropriate educational materials for children; the identification and evaluation of available resources pertaining to liturgy and music, giving special attention to Holy Week and Easter liturgies and to the diverse traditions of song in The Episcopal Church; and to report the results of its efforts to the 77th General Convention; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention request that the Standing Commissions on Liturgy and Music and on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, develop a statement defining Christian anti-Judaism and why it demands our attention, and to report to the 77th General Convention;

Of course, it seems to me biblically inept. There has been a great deal of study on this over the last 20 or so years and there is simply no consensus on whether it is right to speak of anti-Judaism in the NT. (There would be much more consensus in speaking of christian persecution of Jews from the fourth century onwards).

However its slightly ironic when junking the entire Pentateuchal legislation seems the preferred hermeneutical move for the very same folks and “Pharisee” is one of their insults of choice. Still theological consistency may be too high a bar to set for this HOD.

#5 Yup - could someone please develop liturgical materials to deal with Anti-Gentilism and Christian prejudice against IRS agents

‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.

How about deliverance “from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all of his detestable enormities”?

I’ll bet many in the HoD think it’s still okay to pray for that.

What about the presiding bishop’s staunch support of Palestinians, who indiscriminately lob rockets into Israel? Can we get her declared anti-semitic too?

No?

Didn’t think so.

“detestable enormities” now that is a phrase you don’t hear often enough in common speech.

Actually there is a rather serious point - both the COE and the Episcopal Church have a history of rather serious anti Catholicism. Maybe someone should put it to the HOD that they should develop educational materials to show and combat Episcopalian anti Catholicism. Bishop Frade could perhaps take the lead in the HOB.

Re:  #11, you can’t imagine the depth of Palestinian/Arab anti-Semitism unless you hear it personally.  It’s appalling.

I follow an blog on second Temple Judaism. The blogger (an academic) regularly reports claims from significant Palestinian/Egyptian/Jordanian academic and political figures simply denying that a Jewish Temple ever stood on the site of the Temple Mount. These aren’t unimportant or uneducated folks - the guy responsible for all Egyptian Antiquities for example. It’s astonishing, persistent, and apparently ubiquitous.

It is indeed, driver8, and I’ve seen reports of this in the English-language papers here (Cairo).  They deny any Jewish connection to the Holy Land at all, whether in antiquity or in the intervening years.  I’ve seen claims that there were no Jews in Palestine before about 1920.  I’ve seen claims that Jesus (Issa) was not Jewish, but “Palestinian.”

Could the framers and passers of this stupid resolution please be specific about which sections of Scripture they had in mind - by listing book, chapter and verse, so that the rest of us can be clear about which sections might be deleted the next time ECUSA publishes a Bible. Is it only the New Testament which contains the problem texts, or are there some problems in the Old Testament as well?

The hypocrisy of the liberals in ECUSA is breathtaking - as others have already pointed out: condemming Scripture on one hand while on the other offering support and speaking opportunities to Israel’s enemies. Utter foolishness!

fyffee, I think this sort of thing is usually directed to mention of “the Jews” in John’s Gospel and to the Passion narratives in Holy Week.  Of course the simple explanation that what is meant is the first-century Jewish authorities and the mob they incited, not all Jews forever, is not enough for these people.  And you’re right about the hypocrisy.

Well according to the 39 Articles of Religion:

VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
.......
All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

and

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

XXI. Of the authority of General Councils.

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

The ignorance, arrogance and heresy of much of TEC is just breathtaking.

I wonder it the HOB will endorse this ignorance, arrogance and heresy bearing in mind the injunction in the last words of the Holy Bible:
<blockquote>Revelation 22:17-21

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

the NT is anti-hypocrite—definitely a stumbling block to the HOD

Good one, elanor!

Okay, so… when a lot of the loon left philosophize on (e.g.,) the Resurrection as reported in the Gospels, they claim that those portions of Scripture are not reporting on history per se.  Now, they’re saying that there was an attempt to report on the death of Christ, and that the attempt at reporting the history is somehow tainted. 
Leaving aside the “I blame the (storyteller)” point ala Chris Rock for a moment, it seems somehow inconsistent to classify the passages describing the Crucifixion as historical reporting, but those describing the Resurrection as ahistorical/ poetic.
Which is it?

fyfee—your 16 is almost word for word what was said on the floor by the second conservative deputy responding to Ruth Meyers. Was that you?

[*Shaking head*]

PM(19)-
Actually, TEC removed verses 18 and 19 from the lectionary years ago. They figure everything has gone well for them, since, so they can continue to cut and paste as they like.  Well, ok, so they are excommunicate from 8 provinces of 40 million Anglicans, 4 dioceses and dozens of parishes and millions of people have left TEC since, and now they are finding themselves facing economic consequences.  But c’mon, to suggest that arrogance and heresy bring about failure and destruction would imply that one actually believes all those stories in the Book. 

Of course, those of us who DO believe those stories are not especially surprised that while there are no consequences to face from the JSC or ABC, there are indeed consequences to face from the Head of the Church.

Yeah, and the liberal loonies have no problem with inviting Ahmadinejad to talk at the National Cathedral and supporting Hamas. Let’s not be anti-Semitic, but we don’t have any problems with people that want to wipe Israel off the map.

Well, lets not forget that Ahmadinejad has indicated from time to time that wiping the US and Christianity off the map might be good things as well.  So I guess from the TEC point of view, he is fair and balanced.
If they had wanted to pass a resolution stating that you may not use the Bible to justify antisemitism any more than to justify beating your wife, I’d be all for it.
This also sets the unfortunate precedent for excising verses that are ruled “prejudicial”.  How long before all the “misogynist” verses are removed?  Or “anti-gay”?  Or “anti-polygamy”?  Or “anti-nature religion”?  Or “anti-Baal and Molech”?  The Bible has some really ugly things to say about followers of Baal and Molech.

Of course it is. The crucifixion of Jesus was a Jew-on-Jew crime, carried out by a religious court ignoring its own process, where intervention to save an innocent man was ignored by the governing Roman authorities, and was carried out by a Jewish mob incited by Jewish religious authorities to which the state participated as an anti-semantic act. Question is, will it now be a hate crime to mention these parts of the NT? Like some of my Jewish acquaintances, it appears TEC now sees the cross as an offense that needs to be covered or removed from places of display.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1Cor 1:18) But there is a flip side: Give beer to those who are perishing… (Prov 31:6)
Cheers!

Re:  #11, you can’t imagine the depth of Palestinian/Arab anti-Semitism unless you hear it personally.  It’s appalling.

It was in Bahrain that I saw a sticker on a local’s car, a flaming skull with a swastika on the cranium, captioned “White Power.”

If only the fool had known that real Nazis wouldn’t think he was white.

And yet Jesus and all His disciples and most of His apostles, their families and friends, were themselves Jews Jews were God’s chosen people.

Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel is barbaric, primitive, hateful and irrational.  It is difficult to see an end to that pervasive group mindset.

oh, give me a break! this is nothing but an attempt to take attention away from the real issues

Ironically this resolution sets back the cause of Christian anti-anti-Judaism. The fact that anti-Jewish sentiment and actions have been “stirred by” portions of the New Testament is a historical fact. But, the main weapon Christians have against these sentiments is to argue that it is a misinterpretation of Scripture, that in fact the actions of the Jews and Romans in crucifying Christ are irrelevant as it was the sin of all mankind that sent Christ to the cross. But now by saying that these anti-Jewish ideas are “expressed in” portions of the New Testament The Episcopal Church is actually validating the flawed “Christ-killer” reading of the Jews’ role in the crucifixion!

Total hypocrisy.  The revisionists couldn’t care less about anti-Semitism, as their extreme hostility to the Israelis reveals.  This is just another phase in a carefully calculated attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture, in order to justify replacing it with their own political ideology.

#31 is exactly right.  To use the language “expressed in” is both wrong exegetically and “politically.”  Small minds must have gotten to work on that one.  Had they left it at “stirred by” there could be little objection, save for the fiddling while Rome burns to the ground.

Just to follow up, on the exegetical part:  When the Pharisees spoke ill of the Essenes, they were not being “Anti-Jewish.”  The “Christianity” of the NT is a sect of Judaism, with texts written by Jews about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies (save for Luke, who is, if not ethnically Jewish, at least very “Jewish” in ideology).  This is just a sadly superficial and ahistorical account of the 1st century realities, which opens a Pandora’s box of hermeneutical nonsense.

Perhaps there could be some solace in the unintentionally hilarious irony that to declare the Apostle Paul’s views of sexuality to be altogether passe, burdened as he was by his Torah-seeped prejudices, is more than a little anti-Semitic.

Since they will not submit to scripture they must discredit it and, in doing so, they discredit themselves. PC eating it young.  Idiots.

A traditional hymn which contains expression of the understanding of #31 Ecclesiastes 1:18 is “Ah, Holy Jesus.”

Clemmitt

#31 Great point. I’ve read most of the articles and books published on the question of Johannine anti-Judaism published in English over the last 20 or so years. I think it’s fair to say that the majority are not convinced that anti Judaism (let alone anti semitism) is the right way to describe the Gospel of John - given that it is so thoroughly Jewish itself. What we see in the NT is more like an argument within a family.

They would have been on much surer ground if they had addressed anti Judaism in the Christian tradition. Which is to say, as #31 argues, misinterpretations of Scripture.

#19 - Pageantmaster -  now, come on.  You know the 39 articles have been moved to the “historical documents” section of the prayerbk, so puh-leeze don’t expect them to be a valid response to this criticism. 

What do they say about Jesus being a Jew?  Is he despised by these anti-semites?