When I hear the word “Judeo-Christian” I reach for my revolver

Posted by 2 on January 12, 2007
Judaica, When I hear the word...

It is often thought, to borrow from Shaw, that Christianity and Judaism are two religions separated by a common book. But nothing could be further from the truth. The book of Christianity is, of course, the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testaments. Many believe the same holds for Judaism, minus the New Testament. But, in fact, Judaism’s most important book is not the Torah, but the Talmud. It is the Talmud that the rabbis study and pay little attention to the actual text of the Old Testament.

The Talmud is a difficult work to summarize. It is a huge work (the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud consists of 27 volumes) written and compiled by numerous rabbis over several centuries. It is filled with legends, petty regulations of every aspect of life, and sophistic reasoning. H. L. Mencken undertook the arduous task of reading it in its entirety. Here is his summation.

“I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, ‘Science and Health’ and the Book of Mormon.”

Apart from this, the Talmud is one of the most anti-Christian books ever published. It teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a harlot (Sanhedrin 106a), that Jesus is in hell burning in “hot excrement” (Gittin 57a), that Jesus was a sorcerer (Shabbos 104b), and that he lusted after women (Sotah 47a).

Though shocking, such vitriol is not surprising when we consider that it comes from those who rejected the Son of God. What is surprising is how the majority of American Christians came to believe that there is some fundamental commonality between Judaism and Christianity – the “Judeo-Christian Tradition.” That story is an interesting one. And one I will reserve for a future post.

61 Comments to When I hear the word “Judeo-Christian” I reach for my revolver

  • Nice. I admit that I am guilty of referring to Christian morality as “Judeo-Christian morality,” as though that makes it more broad and therefore more meaningful.

  • This article is blatantly false when it says that Judaism holds the Talmud to be more important than the Torah. The Talmud is not considered to be Scripture by Jews, and many will disagree with different parts of the Talmud. The Torah, on the other hand, is considered to be Scripture, the very word of God.

  • According to Life Dynamics 23% of abortionists are Jews. Alen Guttenmacher reports that 70% of abortions are performed on professing Christians. My experience in this area comfirms the veracity of these statisics.
    Of course it can be said that the abortionists are not true Jews, it should be apparent that the professing Christians are not true Christians.
    I know little about the Talmud, or about orthodox Judaism. But I know a Christian when I meet one. There are very few of them in America.


  • Judeo-Christianity is a misnomer! Jews don’t worship from the Christian Bible! The Zionist movement, founded in 1898 in Switzerland, seeks to set up a world Jewish empire! This movement is Satanic! Christ repudiated the Jews after His ressurection! Its time that Christians recognized who the true enemy is! AIPAC controls the Bush Administration! The NeoCons(Jewish Marxists)goaded Bush into invading Iraq to protect Israel! Its time that Congress stopped toadying to the Jews! GET OUT OF IRAQ!

    Ron Graham
    Constitution Party
    Jackson, Mich.

  • David –

    Thank you. I knew that some goy would contest my assertion that the Talmud was more important to the Jews than the Old Testament. For the present, please read the following quotes. If you need further proof, just let me know.

    “In reading the written Torah itself, the Talmud’s exegesis enjoys priority of place. Scripture rightly read reaches Israel in the Talmud (and related writings of Midrash); sound exegesis conforms to the facts of the Talmud.”

    “In all decisions of law that express theology in everyday action, the Talmud forms the final statement of the Torah, mediating Scripture’s rules. Innovation of every kind, whether in the character of the spiritual life or in the practice of the faith in accord with its norms, must find justification in the Talmud” (Rabbi Jacob Neusner)

    In the Talmud itself, Gentile-hating Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

    “He who occupies himself with Scripture gains merit that is no merit. He who occupies himself with Mishnah gains merit for which people receive a reward. He who occupies himsefl with Talmud — there is no source of merit greater than this.”

    The Jewish Chronicle (March 26, 1993) states that in the yeshiva Jews are “devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else.”

  • Ron Graham,
    1) Are you an official representative of the CP or do you just happen to be a member of the CP? If you aren’t an official representative you may want to reconsider tagging “Constitutional Party” onto your signature. I know that the CP has dispensational members who would probably disagree that Zionism is a “satanic” or imperialistic movement.

    2) “Zionism” wasn’t ever “officially” founded as far as I am aware. It appears that Zionism, or restorationism, was stirring in a few different Christian theological circles before the Jews accepted it. There were even postmillennialists who supported restoration of the Jews to the land (Charles Simeon). One of the earliest person’s promoting restorationism was George Stanley Faber in 1809. I am certainly not a Zionist and don’t support the Jewish occupation of Palestine but on what grounds are you calling Zionism satanic?

    3) Not all NeoCons are Jewish Marxists… in my experience the majority of NeoCons are misinformed Christians.

    4) How are “Jews” the enemy?

    6) Chill out, you may end up attracting the wrong crowd to the CP.

    7) I would be interested to look more closely at the word Judeo-Christian. Is it possible that this simply relates to its historical roots in true Judaism and that a Jew is not one outwardly but one who is conformed to Christ (Christian)? I am not familiar with the terms history or exact meaning so I don’t know. But I don’t like drawing my gun over something that may just be semantics.

  • As a Presbyterian and a religion professor (MDiv and PhD), I find this post appalling. You’re not even reading the Neusner correctly — you misunderstand your own quoted evidence. Of course Torah is prior to Talmud in Judaism, as the New Testament is prior to the Westminster Confession in Reformed Christianity.

    I, too, have a problem with the term “Judeo-Christian” — it tends to be offensive to Jews.

    And reach for the revolver? Egad. I don’t know what kind of “college” you guys are running in Lynchburg, but it must be a joke. You clearly can’t be trusted with the New Testament, much less the Talmud.

  • In his “A Rabbi Talks with Jesus,” Jacob Neusner variously defines Torah as (a) the writings of Moses (pp. 19, 21, 22), (b) the entire OT (p. 24), (c) to include the Mishnah, which is both “authoritative and canonical” yet (?) “after the Torah” (p. 38); moreover, (d) the Mishnah and the Talmuds “are regarded as part of the Torah” (102).

    These definitions are confusing if not contradictory. The most charitable construction I can put on his words would be to model it as concentric circles, with Moses at the innermost circle, then the prophets and writings, and so forth. “Torah” can evidently refer to any subset of circles depending on context– including Mishnah and Talmud.

    However, the upshot is that Talmud trumps Scripture, just as tradition does in Romanism. The reason is the same in both cases. Once the qualification as interpreted by… is added to the purported highest authority, the thing that does the interpreting is actually the highest authority.

  • See also my review of Born to Kvetsh by Michael Wex, where he says,

    “Contrary to the usual ‘people of the Book’ shtik (the phrase, incidentally, comes from the Koran), Judaism is a Talmudic, not a biblical religion; without the interpretive guidance of the Talmud, the Hebrew Bible can lead to Jesus on the cross as easily as to me at my bar mitzvah.” (pp. 11-12)

  • Recently, I’ve heard it argued that Judaism today is more Kabbalistic than Talmudic. Thus, books in general may be of ever decreasing value in modern Judaism.

    The gist of your argument, however, is clearly right on the money.

    The traditions of the rabbis, even in Jesus’ day were accorded essentially equal weight as a theoretical matter, and much greater weight (than the Torah) as a practical matter.

    It is much the same as we see in the Papist history, as well as that of the Copts, Ethopics, and Armenians. The EOC are less book-oriented, but they too seem to have accreted a body of tradition with theoretically similar weight but practically much greater weight.

    Thanks be to God for both the New Testament (which destroyed the traditions of the rabbi’s) and the Reformation of the Western church (which destroyed many of the traditions of the papists)!


  • The title of this post is a paraphrased quote attributed to the Nazi Hermann Goering.

    “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver.”

    I second Mark’s question–what kind of college *are* you running out there in Lynchburg?

  • Dear Mark, M.Div., PhD.,

    1) If you really are a religion professor, I’m sorry for your students on those occasions when you pontificate about Judaism. You know little about the subject. Do your own research and stop relying on fluf written by Huston Smith.

    2) “Of course Torah is prior to Talmud in Judaism.” Unless you use ‘prior’ in a temporal sense (which would make your comment true but fatuous) this claim is false. It is not prior in the sense that it is studied more than the Talmud. Nor is it prior in the sense that it is more authoritative. For since the Talmud is used as the interpretive guide to the Torah (in so far as the Jews are concerned with it), the Torah is relegated to mere honorific status. Sure the Jews pay lip service to the Old Testament, but it is in the Talmud they find justification for their bizarre beliefs and practices.

    3) When you take issue with me over which is the most important book of Judaism, you take issue with Rabbi Steinsaltz, who is, I suppose, as good a Talmudic scholar as any.

    “If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct.”

    4) “I, too, have a problem with the term “Judeo-Christian” — it tends to be offensive to Jews.” Like a typical “Judeo-Christian” you are more concerned with Jewish sensitivities than Christian. The Jews can blaspheme our Lord all they like, but Christians must never offend the chosen ones.

    5) “You clearly can’t be trusted with the New Testament, much less the Talmud.” I don’t know where you think I went wrong with the New Testament, but be that as it may, I find this statement telling. Most Christians would put this the other way around. But given your obvious affinity for Judaism, I suppose a comment like this should be expected.

    You are welcome to comment here, but please have something interesting to say. We can tolerate sophists and even the peevish, but not bores.

  • Of Scribes: “He is the Rabbi…He is the Divine aristocrat, among the vulgar herd of rude and profane ‘country-people’, who ‘know not the Law,’ and are ‘cursed’. More than that, his order constitutes the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and practice; he is ‘the Exegete of the Laws,’…Each Scribe outweighed all the common people, who must accordingly pay him every honour. Nay, they were honoured of God Himself, and their praises proclaimed by the angels…Such was to be the respect paid to their sayings, that they were to be absolutely believed, even if they were to declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left, or vice versa.” Again, I recommend Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, whence this quotation is taken.

  • I did a little digging and believe Mark really is a teacher. His school is Simpson College which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. (The UMC ordains women and has a large minority which wants to allow homosexuals into the church.) The following is taken from the Simpson College “Mission” page:

    Simpson College is equally committed to

    * an innovative teaching and learning process enabling students of all ages to develop critical intellectual skills;
    * nurturing those values which foster personal worth and individuality within a creative, diverse and just community;
    * graduating students who will continue as the college’s alumni to grow as free, responsible, fulfilled individuals in the world of family, work, service and scholarship;
    * those standards of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the United Methodist Church which guide members of the Simpson College community on issues of personal integrity, moral responsibility, social justice and citizenship.

    Aside from the effeminate language of the statement, notice what is not part of the mission of the school. The statement says nothing about teaching and defending the holy Christian religion. So while the students will get little, if any, Christian theology, they will presumably learn much about “social justice,” “citizenship,” and how to be “fulfilled individuals.”

    The point of this, though, is to highlight the last portion of the statement. There, perhaps, we discover why Mark is so bothered by my post. His school seeks to propagandize its students with the standards of the “Judaeo-Christian tradition.” Mark is just defending his school’s mission. (I wonder if the misogyny and grotesque sexual regulations found in the Talmud are a part of the “Judeo-Christian” standards they advocate.)

    More puzzling still is that Mark then distances himself from the term (it offends Jews, after all). Since it plays such an important role in the curriculum of Simpson College how can he have a “problem” with it?

    Mark says he is a Presbyterian so he is probably a member of the leftist Presbyterian Church (USA). The one bright spot in this otherwise worthless denomination is that it recently called for divesting from Israeli companies because of the apartheid practiced there against Christian and Muslim Palestinians. I wonder whether Mark was happy with that decision.

  • Dear Ready Reference,

    In fact, the original German quotation is not from Goering but from Act 1, Scene 1 of Hanns Johst’s “Schlageter.” (literally translated the original quotation is something along the lines of “when I hear the world “culture” … I release my Browing’s safety.” Ironically, the Browning was an automatic not a revolver.

    In the present context of this blog, the format “When I hear the word ____, I reach for my revolver,” is used as a platform for gripes regarding language use.

    For all such posts, see:


    The gauntlet has clearly been laid down. Do you have a quotation from Neusner to support your seemingly wild accusation?

    As a Presbyterian, you surely know that you are expected to be able to provide substance to back up your charges.

    Your assertion, “Of course Torah is prior to Talmud in Judaism” does not appear to be supported by evidence, but by supposition.

    There is no corresponding modern Jewish doctrine (Sola Torah??) to the Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

    Furthermore, the Talmud is frequently referrred to as the “Oral Torah” and is alleged to have Mosaic authority (much as the papists asserts Apostolic authority for undocumented “traditions” they have invented).

    Frankly, the comparison to the Westminster Standards is insulting to Christianity. Please withdraw or document or allegations, sir.

  • I’m surprised nobody mentioned the fact that my Ph.D. is from a so-called “Romanist” institution. God forbid! As for pontificating, I think I’ve been outdone by far.

    Honestly, I’m not going to bother any further than this post. Yes, Talmud is sometimes referred to as the “oral Torah” and it does hold authority as an interpretation of Torah — but that certainly doesn’t mean that it trumps it (again, any more than Westminster trumps the New Testament — and to be insulted by that statement is just ridiculous; toughen up). Cornerstone vs. central pillar. You’ve got it right there.

    As for the New Testament, I’m merely suggesting that I can’t imagine Jesus reaching for a revolver. Of course, I may be blinded by my affinity for Judaism, given that I love Jesus, and he was Jewish.

    I do, in fact, work at a college with the term “Judeo-Christian” in the mission statement. I don’t care for the term because I believe it is a Christian attempt to assuage the guilt of centuries of anti-Judaism by inaccurately claiming a common cultural inheritance — it is a relic of a different cultural moment than our own. Also, Methodism is (despite the obvious objections of some on this blog) a variety of Christianity. I’ll leave the rest of the “effeminate” mission statement to speak for itself. We are a church-related liberal arts college, and we take that identity quite seriously, as do I. And I make the above statements as a Reformed Christian who takes the Jewish roots of the faith seriously enough to write a dissertation about it. In this crowd, I suppose that’s enough to end up at the other end of a revolver.

    If you worry that much about a denomination ordaining women, I figure there’s not much point to arguing with you. To me it seems like a fairly obvious thing to do. Unless, of course, you’re stuck with “Romanist” tradition instead of Reformed exegesis.

    No, I was not happy with the PC(USA)’s decision regarding divestment from companies doing business with Israel. Of the many nations in the world with armies involved in questionable endeavors (including our own), to single out Israel seems to me a poorly considered witness. It is most important to witness to one’s own backyard, a position I learned from reading Karl Barth.

    Karl Barth also suggested that if Christians witness to Jews in a manner such that they see our witness as anything less than hospitality and friendship, it is a “fatal but sure sign” of our own faithlessness.

    I suppose you’ll diss Barth now. Or maybe that philo-semite Calvin. Sigh.

  • PS This argument about the Talmud is a classic medieval criticism of Judaism. You know, a “Romanist” argument. Egads!

  • Good research. I’m impressed. My translation says “…I cock my Browning.” No matter the translation; in either case it’s pretty clear that the author does not know the difference between a revolver and a pistol. Hanns Johst was the president of the Reich Chamber of Literature and I’m guessing that firearms training was not part of the job.

    There’s an old saying that if you ask two rebbis a question, you’ll get five answers. You and Mark and the other respondents are having a grand go-around about the Talmud, a topic that is waaay out of my area of expertise, so I will demure.

    My concern is that your paraphrase of a Nazi quote might lead others to believe that you and your fellow editor are neo-nazis. I understand your use of the quote as a blog platform but sometimes what we mean and what others see can be worlds apart.

    Am I correct in thinking that one cannot be both a Christian and a neo-nazi? You certainly don’t need me to quote 1Thess 5:22 . My intention is not to spark a scripture duel or a long debate about the vagueries of greek translations. I think we would both agree that words are powerful tools that must be chosen carefully. Why then would you choose a quote that was and is so much the epitiomy of the NSDP?

  • RR — for the same reason that I wouldn’t blanch to say “we need a new deal” for fear of being called a neo-Rooseveltian; or a dozen other such examples that could be cited. Your concern is either hopelessly PC, or just silly.

    Mark– If I know my Karl Barth, and I think I do, I’ll hazard the guess that there was as little reason given in the quote you cite as in your comments.

  • The formal analogy between Talmud and WCF is an interesting one. Many differences should be obvious. And especially: the manner of adoption should be different for the Presbyterian. The Presby should study the Scriptures with all his ability and opportunity and only adopt the WCF as he becomes sincerely persuaded that they reflect the teaching of Scripture. Whereas, the rabbi studies the Talmud as his “given.” A Jew that after careful study announced, “I just can’t accept that this reflects the grammatical-historical sense of Scripture” would be missing the point.

    There’s enough that needs to be unpacked here that perhaps it warrants a thread of its own.

  • Mark,
    I see that you do not choose to support your assertions with anything more than your personal credentials.
    On the flip side, you can find abundant evidence to the contrary. For a few examples:

    It’s surprising that someone who wrote his doctoral thesis on “the Jewish roots of the Christian faith” would be so ignorant regarding the relationship between the Torah and the Talmud in Judaism.

    In any event, if it comes to a battle of credentials, the author of the last link above is a Jewish Rabbi. Presumably that trumps your PhD from a non-Jewish institution.

    Any rebuttal?

    As for Barth, both Clark and Schaeffer have written excellent critiques. I invite you to read them.

    As for ordination of women, it’s surprising that anyone would dare to claim that it can be supported by exegesis of any kind (Reformed or not).

    One wonders from which passage that practice is exegeted. Surely it cannot be from this one:

    1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    But that shameful practice is both common and open in the PC(USA) today.

    So now, we can see that the Romans 1 curse (Romans 1:22-32) truly has already begun to fall upon them.

    May God be merciful to them, and reopen that denomination’s eyes to the truth before it is too late.


  • Ready reference:
    Sometimes a paraphrased quotation is just a cigar.
    Don’t assume I’m a Freudian any more than the folks here are German playwrights.

  • Judaism is Talmudism and Talmudism is Phariseeism.

    “This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians – that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression … Judaism is not the religion of the Bible”(Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967,p.59).

    “The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.”Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474)

    “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.” ( Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, pg. xxi)

    “The Talmud is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” (Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud, p.70)

  • Dear MRB,

    What your sources omit is that principally the worst parts of Phariseeism have been maintained.

    The scrupulous outward conformity to the Talmud has been largely lost. Few today would view typical Jews as especially scrupulous to outwardly conform to the Talmudic traditions, though there are certainly exceptional Jewish communities.


  • I am surprised that nobody questioned the statements I made about the Talmud in this post. Prior to the 20th Century, Judaics were careful to censor those sections of the Talmud that refer to Jesus and Mary. Since the modern translations (Soncino and Steinsaltz) contain these sections Judaic apologists have changed their tactic by arguing that the passages do not refer to Jesus but another “heretic”. Indeed there are whole web sites dedicated to this end.

    Many have exposed the fraud involved in such denials, but despite this, Judaic apologists keep up the game. With the upcoming publication of Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (Princeton University Press), it seems the game is finally over. In the book, Schäfer (the premiere ‘Christian-Hebraist’ according to Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky) argues that Jesus is indeed the one that the rabbis attack.

    Among the many Judaic luminaries who endorse the book is Elie Wiesel. This would not normally commend it (he has been exposed as a fraud himself), but since he is one of the most prominent represetatives of Judaica, it does signal that they are changing their tactics. This new tactic seems to be, as one researcher has put it, “the making manifest of  all that is hidden.” More on this in a future post.

  • Years ago I wasn’t aware of what the Talmud was. I then had a fellow evangelist point out the disgusting things it had said about our savior his mother and where he currently is. I read on were like cattle it said? Oh my gosh I thought. I guess we die good that way to. It continued on that it was alright to steal from the goyim. But of course it was bad for us to steal from them.

    Just to dispel some misconceptions. One would be this is exclusively used by Reformed groups no it is also widely in use by so called Orthodox. Do not be fooled by that. Another that it is an exhaustive recording from the Babylonian captivity. A lot less of it is. Most of it comes from the 18th century on.

    I noticed a comment about Hitler up there. I am one very proud to be of German descent. I would say that Germans are some of the most reviled people on the face of the earth at this point. Mostly from the continual pounding of the persecutors that somehow became the persecuted. Meanwhile us the Christians have become identified as the persecutors of the formerly persecutors now the persecuted. How in the hell this happened I will never know. Its quite a feat if you can pull it off. Hitler has been called many things. I would like to interject this into history if I may. I am not related to Hitler. However I am to Frederick of Prussia. Hitler did a few other things he is hated for some would consider noble. Also knowing the people that Hitler himself came from. They are sticklers for doing things right. So I guess I am trying here to make sense of it all.

    Hitler ended abortion completely. He closed down all the strip clubs and whorehouses and homosexual gatherings in Berlin. I can only guess who ran those industries. He also did something that is very interesting to me. He ended all the corruption in government. This meant getting rid of the Christian democrats. This was a group packed with freemasons. He also banned freemasonry.

    What this entailed was something more interesting. He started using the laws of the Royalty. If you stole and significant amount. The took everything you had but the clothes on your back and sent you packing. I don’t know if this accounts for the people that had no homes of course. I did know a Jewish gentleman that lived in Berlin during the war. Very openly he had no problems. He said there were many like that as long as you weren’t trying to undermine the government you were OK. I don’t know you can ask him if you want that’s what I was told.

    So the freemasons were out. What I see here is this. We have a country of the G8 and well to put it blatantly a lot of Masonic countries. The masons and their rat tailed friends are back in power in Germany of course. Most of the people hate them. Then there are the rest of the Masonic countries. The following could be a possibility. They hated Hitler for what He did. They still hate Hitler. They absolutely hate the German people who are some of the most honest hardworking people on the planet. They cant tolerate lies and hate dishonesty.

    This question goes way further than WW2. You can take it all the way back to Alexander the Great if you like. One of the greatest forms of propaganda is history my friend. Guess who writes it. Your news is virtually the same news on the same day with the same stories on all the different channels. If you expect me to believe the words, historians or government officials of a place where abortion is legal through the 9th month. You’ve got another thing coming.

  • In seeing the film, The Hiding Place (Corrie ten Boom)again 30 years after it came out, one is surprised at the statements in it. The answers to the questions: Who gave Christians their Bible? Who gave us the Savior? Who are “the apple of God’s eye,” clearly detract from the truth presented by God in His Word. Corrie ten Boom was not famous in her native land even after the movie came out in the US. Cui bono?

  • CtB provides an example of the kind of Judeo-Humanist ethics one sees even today.

    While, as I recall, there is a brief nod to those who chose to speak nothing besides the truth, CtB advocated the false morality of doing evil (lying) so that good would come of it (Jews would not be as quickly captured).

    The false dichotomy that she had to choose between lying to the German authorities or delivering over in chains for certain death her Jewish houseguests is still used by Judeo-Humanists today to rebut absolute Christian morality.

    We can even see that antinomy in the writings of some purportedly Christian and Reformed writers of our day. Fortunately, there is still a faithful remnant that has recognized that position as directly contrary to the Word of God.


  • Read this article from the Palm Beach Daily News.

    Just another common cutpurse, right? What the article fails to say is that the thief is Rabbi Henry I. Sobel, head of the largest synogogue in South America. I guess the reporter just forgot to mention it.

  • I read in a post up top on this thread, that the EOC is a ‘book’ church, but still has some ‘tradition’ mixed in. (Turretinfan) I assume you are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. IF that is so, may I add my two cents?

    St. Paul speaks (in SCRIPTURE!) about traditions- both of writ and of word (written and oral) in II Thess. 2;15. Since the Orthodox Church has been around for 2000 years, they clearly teach that this ‘tradition’ is contained in their liturgies, homilies, and their apostolic ministry, as well as in the Scriptures, which you Westerners got from the beneficence of the Orthodox Church!

    Thus it is, that even the Westminster Divines believed (as did ALL the Reformers) that the H.S. was present in the Ecumenical Councils, [all held on Greek Orthodox soil, with the approval of the Eastern [Roman] Empire’s Emperor] and that they partook of, and contained ‘apostolic council’ in their definitions, such as that of Chalcedon, Nicea, etc. Thus, their definitions were accepted and believed by the Church, East and West, Roman and Protestant. How could that have been, if they operate with the ‘traditions of men’? They don’t. The Orthodox alone of all the churches have kept St. Paul’s dictum about ‘sacred tradition,’ which your own scriptures commend!

    I say this all as preamble to the simple fact that, for the Orthodox, interpretation of Scriptures is not a ‘private matter’ as the Apostle states in the NT, but is the ‘voice of the fathers’ i.e., the NT (indeed, the entire Bible) can ONLY be interpreted in one way- the way that the Church has decided it should be interpreted, for only the Church has ‘kept the faith once delivered unto the saints’!

    Thus, the Orthodox – not the Romans, or the Protestants- are the only legitimate possessors and interpreters of the Sacred Scriptures- for it was under their oversight that the Writings were submitted by the Apostles, and confirmed by the Councils- from Jerusalem on down to Nicea, in 325 A.D.

    You can’t (in other words) have your cake and eat it, too, as Mark, with the MDiv and PhD- piled high and deep- seems to think. While I agree with almost everything you fellas have written, your position falls somewhere along the lines of “Dr. Mark” – you ‘play church’ and only accept that which you want to hear, rather than submit to the Word, and the Church that birthed that word. Does that mean you are in error? Well, not here, on this post, but somewhere along the line, yes, you will inevitably fall into error, because you are severed from the vine.

    As for Jesus being a ‘jew,’ oh puh-leez! Jesus Christ, son of Mary, was not what a “Jew” is today. Arthur Koestler’s “The Thirteenth Tribe” clearly, once and for all time, dissuaded me of THAT fallacy. the Jews of today are descendants of the Khazars, a nomadic turko-finnic tribe that converted to Judaism, rather than Orthodoxy or Islam, merely to keep their ‘own turf’ (Khazaria on older atlases) which was finally conquered by the Russian Orthodox Slavs- a fact they have never forgiven, nor forgotten. Look at the Bolshevikist terror, and think “Jew hate against the Orthodox” and you are pretty much spot on!

    Otherwise, a very good column, and I am glad the LG folks linked to it. Keep up the good work, and read the Fathers- they have some really good things to say about the ‘perfidious jews’- esp. St. John Chrysostom- that only corroborate YOUR views, and decimate “Dr. Mark.”

  • Here is one more confirmation by an important Jewish reference work that the Talmud is more authoritative than the Torah for the Judaic.

    “Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory.”

    “Authority,” Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

  • Just to change the topic slightly (or even to return to the original topic), I think I am a Judeo-Christian. Or to put it differently, what would you call Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, … and myself? I usually go by, “Hebrew-Christian,” or “Messianic Jew,” but really Judeo-Christian is not such a bad descriptor. So put away the revolver (or Browning, etc) and rejoice that there are many Jews who do not “reject the Son of God.”

  • Steve F-

    You have grossly misread my post. From where did you conclude that I would do anything but rejoice in the salvation of any man?

    As to your question about the apostles, that is answered by them; they refer to themselves as servants of Jesus Christ.

    As for you, you cannot be a Judeo-Christian for the same reason you cannot be a Wiccan-Christian or a Zen-Christian. Christianity and Judaism are different religions. So different that Christianity shares as much with Judaism as it does with witchcraft and Buddhism.

    As for the racial question, why is it of any importance that you prefix the word ‘Christian’ with a racial descriptor? Asian Christians don’t refer to themselves as Oriental-Christians, blacks do not call themselves Negro- or Afro-Christians (well, at least not yet), and my people don’t call themselves Anglo-Celtic-Christians. And this is not because Christianity erases our racial difference, but because (1) one’s race is almost always obvious and (2) Christianity is far more important than our race. Indeed, to introduce yourself as an __-Christian, would be much like a British subject declaring himself to be a licensed plumber upon being introduced to the Queen. This information is not relevant and its effect would certainly not be to impress.

    Ask yourself: why do you go by “Hebrew-Christian” or “Messianic Jew”? Or, more broadly, why do most Jews who have converted to Christianity refer to themselves as “Messianic Jews”? Pride is the obvious answer, but I also think that they like the fact that they become instant celebrities in the typical rapture-happy American “church.” And either reason is unwholesome for everybody involved.

    Apart from this, to introduce yourself in a white church as a “Hebrew-Christian” and expect to be treated with deference (let alone expect to become a fully integrated part of the congregation) is the height of bad manners. You may eventually be accepted, but this is despite your Jewishness not because of it.

    Consider this analogy. Suppose I visited a Club for Japanese professionals and introduced myself as a White Physician. This would hardly ingratiate myself to them. The Japanese already know I am not one of them so why rub their noses in it? If I were to aspire to membership, a better policy would be to play-down the fact that I am racially not one of them. The good news is that while this probably could never be pulled off in the Japanese club, it may be pulled off in a local congregation.

  • MRB:
    Did you know that the majority of Messianic Jews are not ethnically Hebrew (Israeli, whatever). Baruch Maoz has a good book called, Judaism Is Not Jewish.

  • I guess my concern is that the word “Judeo” (or Jewish) has been claimed by two camps: those following the rabbis (Talmud/Mishnah/Gemarrah and all that) and those following the Messiah. The two groups have a lot in common and a lot that separates them. Paul in Romans talks of the grafting of Gentiles into the olive tree in such a way that Judeo-Christian is really a good term. I suppose my fuss is when two competing groups struggle for who gets to control the use of the word Jew and one of the groups hijacks the word from the other. I believe what I am doing (and the apostles did) following Jesus the Messiah is true Judaism, and what the rabbis are doing is the aberrant departure. However, sheer numbers of adherents says otherwise. All this to say that when you hear the word Judeo-Christian, stop and think WHICH JEWS before you grab the revolver.

    As to why the label at all: when guitars first were invented, of course they were acoustic. There was no other kind. Then came the electric guitar (as opposed to a plain guitar). Then later when most were electric a retronym had to be coined: an “acoustic” guitar since the “normal” guitar had come to mean electric. When Christians first showed up on the scene of course they were Jewish, there was no other kind. Then came the Gentile Christians (as opposed to a plain Christian who of course was Jewish). Then when the norm was Gentile, another retronym had to be coined: the Jewish Christian. Imagine if now someone insisted you could not have an acoustic guitar, it can only be electric. Nonsense. But, if over centuries, the original acoustic guitar (lute? psalter?) turned into something rather different (banjo? mandolin? sitar?) and now everyone called THEIR instrument simply a “guitar”, then some other adjective would be needed. It might be helpful to leave it ambiguous which kind of guitar to get the conversation going. “Judeo-Christian” (or Jewish-Christian): not a pride thing at all, but rather a conversation starter because alas, it is unusual these days, just as unusual as if I played a lute and referred to it as the original (and proper) guitar.

  • Steve F-

    A question and a few comments:

    1) Other than race, what do Talmudic Judaics share in common with Christians who are ethnically Jewish?

    2) Paul uses the term ‘Israel’ not ‘Jew’ (or any derivative from it) in the passage you allude to. So you should rather insist upon the term, “Israeli-Christians.” But since the Christian church is the Israel of God, this term is redundant. Let’s just stick to ‘Christian.’

    3) Judaism is a religion not a race (albeit a religion that has a lot to say about race). And Judaism never was a true religion. Judaism is Talmudism and the only interest it has with the Old Testament is to systematically nullify it. The rabbis invented Judaism; let them have the word.

    4) This is a lot of ink to spill if your only concern is to have a “conversation starter.” If that all you want, why not say something clear such as, “Hi, I’m Steve. I am now a Christian, but I used to practice Judaism. Oh, and for what its worth, I’m ethnically a Jew.”? A little unwieldy, but it captures everything you seem to want to say.

    [Why saying all this is important to you, I’m still at a loss to understand. Image someone responding, “Hi Steve, I’m Leroy Ahmed. I am now a Muslim, but I used to practice animism. Oh, and for what its worth, I’m a Negro.]

    5) Much of this discussion of how you want to refer to yourself is tangential to the article. There I attack the term as it is normally used: as a name for a non-existent tradition.


    Yes, good point, but I did not want to muddy the waters with one more issue. At least not at this time. But you know FW. If it is a controversial topic we will eventually get to it.

  • This recent turn of the discussion is very interesting, but let’s also not forget that the semantics of the term “Judeo-Christian” in our current vernacular is not ordinarily a personal reference. When Schaeffer, Colson and World Magazine use the term, they mean something like “the ethical theory grounded in Judaism and Christianity, and upheld by Jews and Christians.” But C S Lewis already exposed the fallacy of this way of thinking when he observed that everything worth preserving in Judaism is in fact preserved in Christianity. In addition, it only requires observing the great mass of nonsense that Judaism has become (all but extinguishing that biblical kernel), which was the point of the post, to conclude that using the expression as Schaeffer et al did is either (at best) illogical or (at worst) craven sucking up to a group that can do a great deal of harm to anyone that insults them.

  • The term “Judeao-Christian” is a dispensationalist term. Because this theology says that there are 2 peoples of God; Church and Israel(Jews). And these two peoples of God have a common heritage through the OT, thus the compound term “Judeao-Christian”.

    But since there is only 1 people of God, the “Church”, the prefix “Judeao” is irrelevant(maybe its an oxymoron).

  • I would like the “Judeo-Christians” readers of FW to explain why their Judaic brothers believe it is their religious duty to spit on the cross or spit on Christian clergy who wear or hold the cross.

    The one flaw with the linked article is that it focuses only on the Orthodox sect. According to Israel Shahak this has been the common practice of Jews since 200 AD. Indeed, the Jewish hatred of the cross is so rabid that the state of Israel forbids the use of the plus sign (“+”) when teaching arithmetic to Jewish children.

    Luther understood the Jew’s hatred of Christians and Christian symbols.

    “Whenever you see or think about a Jew, say to yourself as follows: Behold, the mouth which I see there has every Saturday cursed, execrated, and spit upon my dear Lord, Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with His precious blood; and also prayed and cursed before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians, should be stabbed and perish in the most miserable manner.”

    If Luther were alive in Germany today (or Canada or many European countries and soon in America) he would be in jail for committing a hate crime. The logic behind hate crime laws is that it is acceptable for Jews to spit on crosses and blaspheme the name of Christ, but it is hateful to point out that this is their common practice.

  • A traditionalist Catholic friend of mine (no lover of Jews, by any means) once tried to get me to listen to a tape called, “Luther–Precursor to Hitler”. This was a mere ploy by an RC who cares not a whit for Jews to discredit Luther, and oppose the Protestant Reformation.

  • Eliza — but she wouldn’t give that tract out now would she? now that she’s awakened to the jewish menace?

  • This is an interesting article about a jewish man who converted from Talmudism to Christianity. The man’s picture is a bit disturbing (the regalia, the crucifixes, the flag), but his attire reflects his complete rejection of all things jewish. For that he is to be commended.

    It will take a few minutes but read the whole article. He knows first-hand what my colleague and I report here second-hand: international jewry is Christianity’s worst enemy. He even sees right through the distinction between the “bad” zionist jews and the “good” anti-zionist ones: they are both judaic connivers .

    And despite the extravagant attire and the Orthodoxy, this man provides us with a model of what jewish converts should look like. Jews who convert must repudiate all things Talmudic especially its jewish supremacist ideology. There must be no nonsense about about keeping the good parts of Judaism. There are no good parts of Judaism.

    Visit his web site. Start with this article.

  • Truly a camel who went through the eye of a needle. Praise God from him.

    I still wonder about the ways to effectively get the message out. How easy it is to write him off as religous freak who parades the streets. The enemy has a need for guys like him: they help make the truth remain marginalized. Fox is reality, and no one will care to verify his anti-Fox claims. Perhaps a few, but only as the fetters tighten.

    God help us.

  • Joshua-

    There is no one way to get the message out. We have ours, Brother Nathanael has his. A few are listening to us and I’m sure a few are listening to him. Though the fetters will continue to tighten, we will eventually win. The Judaics have pr, the media and hot air.  We have the God of Israel.

  • MRB,

    We as the church have the God as Israel. But the church is a whore on this an many issues. The average Christian is public-schooled and Foxed: he is a deweaponed slave.

    We have the God of Israel, and they have the Devil of hell. I’m interested in tools, weapons, and strategies with which to serve our God, and live out our slogans.

    Two years ago the PCA easily rejected (32-10) a resolution to discourage public schools and encourage Christian schools. If that is indicative of the PCA at large (perhaps the evangelical church), then she is 3-1 a fool.

    A sincere question to FW: why is this blog largely silent on addressing the the problems of the church, and proposing solutions to such foolishness? With all the insight you two have (and I’m an appreciative debtor), it seems you can do better than recommending a taste for German opera. :)

  • MRB,

    Sorry if that last paragraph seemed curt. I think I projected some of my own frustrations. FW has challenged and helped my thinking very much. I’m thankful for the electronic influence of you two brothers!

  • Dear Joshua,
    As far as I know this whole blog german opera included is an attempt to challenge your thinking in all things, but especially the church and its current condition. The little ditties like “when I hear…” or the One Holy Catholic Church or the work done on Orthodoxy by MRB.
    How about the apologetic or even some of the history… these things have common themes that occur in the church today.
    I also know that on a local level TJH has worked hard in several congegations to stem the tide of the unsavory characters that are present to little avail….
    I believe as the Divines state that the church has its good ages and poor ones and at the momment we are in a poor one.
    We TJH MRB and myself have seen some real strange things that occur in the church today that do bother us greatly and this forum is one of the few places where we are not shouted out or voted over….
    It is my hope that these men will continue this work and it will be fruitful in any and all respects as God wills.
    Being true Calvinists we do need to persever and well ” gird up yourselves like men” and take to the battle before us…
    s.e. hoffmeister

  • Thanks, Steve. That was helpful.There is also the issue of airing our dirty laundry that I often overlook.

1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *