Question for Croix de Fer

[Jayne]

This so-called "sectarian sense" of the word "Judaizer" is how it is normally used and has been used for almost 2000 years.  The only person with a different meaning for it is Pon de Replay who apparently is using this as an opportunity to express his rejection of traditional Christian beliefs.

[Mono no aware]

This so-called "sectarian sense" of the word "Judaizer" is how it is normally used and has been used for almost 2000 years.  The only person with a different meaning for it is Pon de Replay who apparently is using this as an opportunity to express his rejection of traditional Christian beliefs.

I am just being slightly creative with an idea that is by no means novel nor original to me.  Although he did not re-appropriate the term "Judaizer," these are essentially the ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nor was it even original to him.  The ancient Roman objection to Christianity was that it was a Jewish sect.  The Romans did not care for the Jews, but they reluctantly tolerated them as a people somewhat hallowed by time and customs, and because they did not tend to be proselytizers.  The Roman despising of Christianity was in part for its missionary impulse.  They (the Romans) were the traditionalists of their day, and did not want society overrun by a Hebrew religion.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

I am just being slightly creative with an idea that is by no means novel nor original to me.  Although he did not re-appropriate the term "Judaizer," these are essentially the ideas of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nor was it even original to him.  The ancient Roman objection to Christianity was that it was a Jewish sect.  The Romans did not care for the Jews, but they reluctantly tolerated them as a people somewhat hallowed by time and customs, and because they did not tend to be proselytizers.  The Roman despising of Christianity was in part for its missionary impulse.  They (the Romans) were the traditionalists of their day, and did not want society overrun by a Hebrew religion.

Can you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.

[TheReturnofLive]

Arguably, the man in the video you posted does not profess the name of Jesus Christ. The "pastor" consistently referred to Our Lord as "Yeshuah Hamashiach" a Hebrew name that appears nowhere in Scripture.  I realize that this is a translation of "Jesus Christ", but there is no tradition of Christians using Hebrew like this.  It is typically an affectation of Judaizers, like Jews for Jesus or Hebrew Israelites, and closely tied to their heretical beliefs.

"Judaizer" as a term, in the way you are using it, is just sectarian semantics.  But Christianity in toto itself is the real Judaizing monster, the 800-lb. gorilla of Jewishness: by its missionaries and its conquerors, Europe was given a Hebrew religion.  Yeshua, Jesus.  You say "to-may-to," he says "to-mah-to."  At least we were spared Mohammedanism, though.  Could be worse.

Is your point that Islam was way more of a Judaizing monster than Christianity is?

If not,  tell me how Islam isn't as much of a Judaizing monster as Christianity it?

Same moral values, in fact same stories about the vanity of dominance when God is dominant over all, and same destructive and conquering tendencies. All those pagan temples were destroyed, all art burned, all literature censored in the name of Allah. In fact mucn, much worse because Islam is far more Judaic in praxis compared to Christianity.

[TheReturnofLive]

-

[Mono no aware]

Can you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.

The most famous would probably be Celsus' tract, The True Word, which only survives in quoted portions in Origen, but seems to have been generally aimed at Christianity in terms of it being a Semitic novelty and coming up against Celsus' conservative instincts to preserve Roman paganism.

Celsus writes that "there is an ancient doctrine [archaios logos] which has existed from the beginning, which has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men."  He leaves Jews and Moses out of those he cites, and instead blames Moses for the corruption of the ancient religion: "the goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader were deluded by clumsy deceits into thinking that there was only one God, [and] without any rational cause ... these goatherds and shepherds abandoned the worship of many gods."

The early Christian martyrs were put to death mainly for being refuseniks when it came to sacrificing or honoring the Roman gods.  This was irksome to the Romans when done by both Jews and Christians alike.  Caligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there.  The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)

[Mono no aware]

Is your point that Islam was way more of a Judaizing monster than Christianity is?

Negative.  My point is that they are both Judaizing monsters.  I wholly agree with you that Islam is "far more Judaic in practice compared to Christianity," and that is why I think it would've been worse.  In Mohammedanism you really have the martial and barbaric spirit of the Old Testament.  You're back in the desert.

Friedrich Nietzsche -
"On the Genealogy of Morality" and "Beyond Good and Evil"

His views on the evolution of Judaism and the Jewish priesthood were probably best formulated in chapters 24-27 of The Antichrist.  Some of the subsequent chapters concern the ultimate consequence of that Jewish history: the world's greatest Judaizer, Paul of Tarsus.  You should read it, if you haven't.  I think you might enjoy it.

[TheReturnofLive]

Negative.  My point is that they are both Judaizing monsters.  I wholly agree with you that Islam is "far more Judaic in practice compared to Christianity," and that is why I think it would've been worse.  In Mohammedanism you really have the martial and barbaric spirit of the Old Testament.  You're back in the desert.

Yeah.

His views on the evolution of Judaism and the Jewish priesthood were probably best formulated in chapters 24-27 of The Antichrist.  Some of the subsequent chapters concern the ultimate consequence of that Jewish history: the world's greatest Judaizer, Paul of Tarsus.  You should read it, if you haven't.  I think you might enjoy it.

I'll take a read. Thank you.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Can you point me to your original sources for this idea, Pon? My impression from what I've read is that the Romans were mainly concerned that Christians would become politically active as a group. There were also charges of cannibalism and other forms of depravity, but these of course are silly and based on misunderstandings of things such as the Eucharist. I don't think I've encountered any writers who objected specifically to the Hebrew origins of Christianity.

The most famous would probably be Celsus' tract, The True Word, which only survives in quoted portions in Origen, but seems to have been generally aimed at Christianity in terms of it being a Semitic novelty and coming up against Celsus' conservative instincts to preserve Roman paganism.

Celsus writes that "there is an ancient doctrine [archaios logos] which has existed from the beginning, which has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men."  He leaves Jews and Moses out of those he cites, and instead blames Moses for the corruption of the ancient religion: "the goatherds and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader were deluded by clumsy deceits into thinking that there was only one God, [and] without any rational cause ... these goatherds and shepherds abandoned the worship of many gods."

The early Christian martyrs were put to death mainly for being refuseniks when it came to sacrificing or honoring the Roman gods.  This was irksome to the Romans when done by both Jews and Christians alike.  Caligula is supposed to have tried to place a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem in order to test the Jews' loyalty there.  The recalcitrance and self-aggrandizing haughtiness of the God of the Hebrews was unpalatable to the Romans—whether in his primary priesthood or in his various sectarian devotees (Christians, Samaritans, Bar Kokhbans, &c.)

Interesting. Thank you, Pon. I will take a look at Origen, if and when I ever have sufficient free time again.   In the meantime, the Wikipedia article you provided suggests that Celsus' objection was to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, rather than their Semitic origins per se.

[Mono no aware]

In the meantime, the Wikipedia article you provided suggests that Celsus' objection was to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, rather than their Semitic origins per se.

True.  "Semitic" would probably encompass peoples such as the Egyptians and the Canaanites, who were not strict monotheists (excepting the possible Akhenaten affair).  Strict monotheism would be exclusively Jewish, which I think is how Celsus was viewing things.

[Graham]

It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.

[Croix de Fer]

It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.

I agree. Good thing I'm none of the above. What say you, graham cracker?

[Vetus Ordo]

At least we were spared Mohammedanism, though.  Could be worse.

Islam influenced Southern Europe and the Balkans to a large extent.

One cannot help but look in amazement at the civilization of Al-Andalus or the Emirate of Sicily, for instance.

[Graham]

It feels like half of this forum is Nietzscheans, gnostics, perennialists, and Christian Identity people. I believe we discussed this problem as recently as six months ago. It's past time to be banning these twerps.

I agree. Good thing I'm none of the above. What say you, graham cracker?

You should be banned for being dumb and giving off homosexual vibes

[Croix de Fer]

You should be banned for being dumb and giving off homosexual vibes

Satan means "accuser", and Satan accuses the innocent of that which he is guilty.

Projection of your own sodomite desires or activity is another default response of somebody who has already lost the argument, besides call their foe a "troll".

Poor chess move, graham cracker.