According to a letter in the 5th July edition of
the Jewish Chronicle, Judaism has no role in determining the law of
the land. The achingly liberal signatories (Stephen Fry, David Toube, Anthony
Julius, Norman Geras, and so on) were objecting to the Chief Rabbi's opposition
to same-sex "marriage".
But what would they say if it were pointed out
that cutting bits of babies was already illegal but that that law was not
enforced against Jews or Muslims when the babies were male? For that matter, do
they mean the law of every land? You know, including That One?
Not that I particularly approve of their general
argument, and not only because I agree with Lord Sacks about marriage. Lord
Glasman is Jewish. But it is amazing how many people do not realise that Judaism is
a reaction against Christianity. It defined its Biblical Canon so as to exclude
books likely to lead people into Christianity. The Talmud is replete with
anti-Christian abuse, often of a pornographic or scatological kind which turns
up a great deal in the American entertainment industry.
The State of Israel appoints and pays Sharia
judges whose rulings are the law of the land if you happen to have been born
into certain ethnic minorities, but Israel accords no recognition whatever to
comparable Christian bodies. The Israeli Government opposed UNESCO's
recognition of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as a Word Heritage Site,
demonstrating a determination to demolish the oldest church in the world in
continuous use.
And the practice of circumcision became heavily
emphasised in the period of the rise of Christianity, specifically in order to
distinguish Jews from Christians. That is also why Muslims do it.
First in the Church Times and then again The Guardian, Giles Fraser has spoiled an excellent argument for
postliberalism by making this his example.
There are number of points I would like to make (the Talmud is not replete with anti-Christian remarks let alone scatalogical ones and, indeed, if you added up the dozen or so examples you still wouldn't have anythign to compare to page of Chrysostom, the Hebrew canon was selected based primarily on which books had extant Hebrew and Aramaic MSs and obvious chronological criteria, Rabbinic Judaism is an observable historical phenomenon for at least a century prior to Jesus, which is why he critiqued it, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population rises year on year etc.) however I will pass that up to make one main point.
ReplyDeleteI realise that you adopted traditionalist Roman Catholicism more as a convenient political pose than anything else, but you could still do with being a bit more clued up about it. Real old school Catholics do not abonminate and stigmatise circumcision, since that would intefere with their festival celebrating the day it was done to their Lord and saviour. Perhaps your peculiar brand of Paulinism would be better suited to another sect, but, in the meantime, maybe Wikipedia can fill you up a bit (Spoiler: Vatican II got rid of it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Circumcision_of_Christ
You will have to do a great deal better than that.
ReplyDeleteOne of your books has a chapter dealing with the Hellenism/Hebraism thing, complete with a preface by the leading English-language theologian in the world. What you don't know about the formation of the OT Canon is not worth knowing and I bet you could breeze your way around S. John Chrysostom if you had to. You blogged not long ago about his Liturgy, familiarity with the present users of which makes you no stranger to the Christians in the Middle East, so extremely unlikely to fall for Gabriel's lazy Zionist drivel out of the US media. As lazy as the other propaganda from much the same source that he seems to have swallowed over Early Judaism. And the idea that you had never heard of the Feast of the Circumcision! Gabriel should read your books. He might learn something. God knows I did and I am not the only one.
ReplyDeleteThe venerable Mr. Lindsay is Arab Christianity's main man among British commentators, even more than Peter Hitchens who remains a bit pro-Israeli. Mr. Lindsay is a member of the prestigious international Centre of Theology and Philosophy at Nottingham, which exists to explore "the interaction of the Hebraic and Hellenic traditions." He is also closely associated with the International Theological Institute at Trumau near Vienna, the main institutional bridge to the Eastern Catholic Churches that are so important in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. He enjoys legendary status among Arab Christians for his persecution by our wicked blood enemy, the pseudo-Catholic editor of Telavivagraph Blogs. Gabriel is so far out of his depth that it is not funny, only sad.
ReplyDeleteDamian Thompson is a legitimate military target. His time will come.
ReplyDeleteOn topic, please.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I am surprised that you allowed Gabriel's comment up, it is so bad and you know so much more about the subject than he does. Are you going soft in your old age?
ReplyDeletePerish the thought. But it so bad that all that I needed to do was put it up on here. Its author is condemned by his own pig ignorance.
ReplyDeleteGabriel's theory about the formation of the Canon is just nuts, and his claim about the Talmud is either totally ignorant or shamefully dishonest. I realise that you know that but not all of your readers might.
ReplyDelete