Topic: Wake Up To The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition

[Pericles]

However, since you particularly object to this term, then it doesn't seem to match Orthodoxy when you say:

The roots of the Judeo-Christian Tradition can be found in the Jewish Christianity of the first century and later in Arianism.

The problem is that Orthodoxy itself sees the Christianity practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians as a foundational part of Orthodoxy.

I certainly don't think that's the case, the term "Jewish Christianity" refers to Jews that accepted Christ as messiah but rejected his divinity, like the Ebionites, Nazarenes & etc. Jewish Christianity developed out of the Judaizers that Peter had a problem with in Acts. Orthodoxy developed out of Gentile (Greek) Christianity and was in conflict with Judaizing elements until Nicaea. On the basis that Christ and the Apostles believed in and taught the divinity of Christ, Orthodoxy could not have developed out of a beleif system that denied the central tenet of Orthodoxy.

[rakovsky]

However, since you particularly object to this term, then it doesn't seem to match Orthodoxy when you say:

The roots of the Judeo-Christian Tradition can be found in the Jewish Christianity of the first century and later in Arianism.

The problem is that Orthodoxy itself sees the Christianity practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians as a foundational part of Orthodoxy.

I don't think that's the case, the term "Jewish Christianity" refers to Jews that accepted Chrisf as messiah but rejected his divinity, like the Ebionites & etc.

I don't think so. The term "Greek Christianity" would refer to Christianity in general among Greeks, not just those with notions common among nonChristian Greeks (in that case pagans).

[Pericles]

I don't think so.

Well actually yes it does.

A Jewish Christian isn't just a Jew that believes in the divinity of Christ, that would be a Christian who also happens to be a Jew.

[Pericles]

Jewish Values and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Do Not Belong to the Fundamentalist Right

The most objectionable aspect of Schwartz's article is not the specious nature of his attacks on the president -- more on that below -- but his perpetuation of the canard that Jewish values and the Jewish and Judeo-Christian traditions are somehow the undisputed property of fundamentalist right-wing theologians and politicians.

Menachem Rosensaft Professor of law and son of Holocaust survivors.

Full Article

[recent convert]

Please tell us how you meant it. Thanks, Carl Kraeff

Fluffy means vague and undefined.

Your whole premise of trying to debunk the Jewish root of Christianity using the American concept of being a "Judeo-Christian" nation is a senseless example to support replacement theology. The Epistle of Barnabus does this just fine without invective.

[Pericles]

Your whole premise of trying to debunk the Jewish root of Christianity using the American concept of being a "Judeo-Christian" nation is a senseless example to support replacement theology. The Epistle of Barnabus does this just fine without invective.

Oh it goes much deeper than that! There was nothing to replace, except myths & legends.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Please tell us how you meant it. Thanks, Carl Kraeff

Fluffy means vague and undefined.

Thank you for your clarification. Please be aware that I was considering disciplining you for resorting to ad hominem. It may be safer in the future to say what you mean in plain English instead of resorting to labels. Thanks, Carl Kraeff

[ialmisry]

However, since you particularly object to this term, then it doesn't seem to match Orthodoxy when you say:

The roots of the Judeo-Christian Tradition can be found in the Jewish Christianity of the first century and later in Arianism.

The problem is that Orthodoxy itself sees the Christianity practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians as a foundational part of Orthodoxy.

I certainly don't think that's the case, the term "Jewish Christianity" refers to Jews that accepted Christ as messiah but rejected his divinity, like the Ebionites, Nazarenes & etc. Jewish Christianity developed out of the Judaizers that Peter had a problem with in Acts. Orthodoxy developed out of Gentile (Greek) Christianity and was in conflict with Judaizing elements until Nicaea. On the basis that Christ and the Apostles believed in and taught the divinity of Christ, Orthodoxy could not have developed out of a beleif system that denied the central tenet of Orthodoxy.

Haven't read St. Paul, have you?

Or know anything about the mission of St. Peter, as the NT describes it.

[vamrat]

I have really never understood the term judeo-christian. Why can't we just be christians?

Put me down for this.

Obviously Christianity has Jewish roots (along with Hellenistic influence), but what is the term Judeo-Christian _____ even supposed to mean?  Wouldn't the "Judeo" bit that is apparent, e.g. the 10 Commandments, already be implied by the "Christian"?

Also, it's almost always used to describe a culture or nation that has been predominately Christian, not Jewish.  

But how could I forget the Jewish-Christian nations of Ireland, Portugal, Kenya, Chile, and Finland.

Edit: I should've just read OrthoNoob's post above mine.

CC: OrthoNoob


Most of the time I have seen Judeo-Christian used it has been either linked to politics, i.e. U.S. + Israel (and I shall leave the politics at that) or rascism/politics, i.e. a convenient way Neo-Nazi Black Metal Aficionados (NNBMA) to blame da eeevil Krishtins and J00s collectively for all that is wrong with the formerly pagan utopia of Europa.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I am surprised that nobody has talked about this aspect:

"The term "Judeo–Christian" did not gain popularity, however, until after The Holocaust in Europe. Reacting against the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, European and American commentators sought to redefine Judaism as integral to the history of The West. The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

[Charles Martel]

I am surprised that nobody has talked about this aspect:

"The term "Judeo–Christian" did not gain popularity, however, until after The Holocaust in Europe. Reacting against the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, European and American commentators sought to redefine Judaism as integral to the history of The West. The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

This is true. Being a cradle Catholic for over four decades and attending Catholic schools growing up I never heard this phrase "Judeo-Christian" until well into my adult years and usually from evangelical cirlcles.

As a matter of fact, from my expierence, "Judeo-Christian" is code word for "not Catholic/Orthodox" by most of the Protestant right wingers and pro-Zionists when they are describing themselves as opposed to the rest of Christendom.

This is totally bogus, there is no such thing as "Judeo" Christianity, there's only the Church established on Earth by Jesus Christ.

[rakovsky]

I don't think so.

Well actually yes it does.

A Jewish Christian isn't just a Jew that believes in the divinity of Christ, that would be a Christian who also happens to be a Jew.

Pericles, your source says what I am saying:

Jewish Christians were the original members of the Jewish reform movement that later became Christianity. In the earliest stage the community was made up of all those Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a venerable person or even the messiah, and was thus equivalent to all Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian

I had written:

The problem is that Orthodoxy itself sees the Christianity practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians as a foundational part of Orthodoxy.

I understand that the Wikipedia article goes on to distinguish Jewish Christians from orthodox Christians by saying that the former kept their Jewish rituals. However, I find this to be a possibly artificial difference. First, Jesus and the first apostles distinguished themselves from Jewish rituals sometimes. For example, St Peter had a vision that it was OK to eat any kind of food. So I disagree that Jewish Christian necessarily means one who follows the rituals.

My understanding is really that just as one can say Irish Catholic, Palestinian Christian, Greek Orthodox, or French protestant, it is possible to say "Jewish Christian" and refer to one's cultural or ethnic background without referring to a separate set of observances. (After all, Irish Catholics are really Roman Catholics).

On a sidenote, assuming Wikipedia's simplistic definition, focusing on rituals is correct, it does not mean there were theological differences about Jesus' divinity. After all, the Ebionites who disbelieved this are only one of the subgroups mentioned.

[rakovsky]

Thanks for sharing, Carl:

The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

However, I find this definition confusing. After all, there are shared theological beliefs like monotheism that go beyond mere standards of religious ethics. Plus, even assuming this is the definition, it seems easily confusable, since Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have some important opposing views.

In any case, it's helpful to know this sense in which it's used.

[ialmisry]

Thanks for sharing, Carl:

The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

However, I find this definition confusing. After all, there are shared theological beliefs like monotheism that go beyond mere standards of religious ethics. Plus, even assuming this is the definition, it seems easily confusable, since Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have some important opposing views.

In any case, it's helpful to know this sense in which it's used.

The sense I use it comes from the fact that we share, more or less, the OT and traditions that are related (e.g. Passover/Pascha, Pentacost), etc.

[rakovsky]

It's kind of like referring to "Anglo-German" culture. One can point out that the English came from Germanic tribes. However, the term creates confusion, because someone might claim that Sauerbraten is part of "Anglo-German" culture, when in fact it's only part of German culture. Further, Anglos and Germans might dispute how much of each one's culture really came from their common source or was invented or picked up from other cultures later.

In both cases you have the root (Germanic or Judeo) and a branch (Anglo or Christian) with a new name, and you also have another branch (modern Germans and Rabbinic Judaism) that typically keeps the root's name.

The group keeping the old name might claim that the one with the new name is not really part of a common tradition. Then one may think of a counterargument: at one point it was promised that God's followers would have a new name. This new name could be "Nazarenes" or "Christians." There was also promise of a New Covenant in Jeremiah. But the fact that the term creates a controversy shows that it's a confusing one.

But maybe it's still a real term. I could see one talking about the "Western Christian" tradition. My understanding would be then that Papal infallibility and rejection of it are both parts of that tradition. Yet some more sectarian Orthodox might claim that Western Christianity doesn't exist outside western followers of the Orthodox Church, and so Papal infallibility is not part of it.

[TheTrisagion]

I could be wrong, but don't we view the Church as eternal? "True" Israel is part of the Church and they were entrusted with the oracles of God.  Obviously, there are those Jews who deny Christ and they were cut off from the tree, but as a whole, the Church grew through the nation of Israel until it was proclaimed through the nations.  That is not to say that we should go back to the OT way of doing things, but we should recognize that it had a significant impact on the development of the Church.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I am surprised that nobody has talked about this aspect:

"The term "Judeo–Christian" did not gain popularity, however, until after The Holocaust in Europe. Reacting against the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, European and American commentators sought to redefine Judaism as integral to the history of The West. The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

This is true. Being a cradle Catholic for over four decades and attending Catholic schools growing up I never heard this phrase "Judeo-Christian" until well into my adult years and usually from evangelical cirlcles.

As a matter of fact, from my expierence, "Judeo-Christian" is code word for "not Catholic/Orthodox" by most of the Protestant right wingers and pro-Zionists when they are describing themselves as opposed to the rest of Christendom.

This is totally bogus, there is no such thing as "Judeo" Christianity, there's only the Church established on Earth by Jesus Christ.

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Thanks for sharing, Carl:

The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

However, I find this definition confusing. After all, there are shared theological beliefs like monotheism that go beyond mere standards of religious ethics. Plus, even assuming this is the definition, it seems easily confusable, since Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have some important opposing views.

In any case, it's helpful to know this sense in which it's used.

I would think that the opposing views would not be part of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition. I personally think that the phrase is an attempt to bridge the gap between Judaism and Christianity so that Christians would consider treating Jews as fellow human beings, rather than Christ-killers, parasites, sub-humans, etc... Remember that the memory of the pogroms and the Holocaust was fresh.

[ialmisry]

An interesting context to this question would be to study the response of the Sephardim/Mizrahim (e.g. Maimonides) on an Judeo-Islamic Tradition.  (btw, I wonder: are Romaniotes Mizrahim?)

[rakovsky]

I could be wrong, but don't we view the Church as eternal? "True" Israel is part of the Church and they were entrusted with the oracles of God.  Obviously, there are those Jews who deny Christ and they were cut off from the tree, but as a whole, the Church grew through the nation of Israel until it was proclaimed through the nations.  That is not to say that we should go back to the OT way of doing things, but we should recognize that it had a significant impact on the development of the Church.

Trisagion,

Your analysis of church teaching on this is correct. Many are not aware of this teaching. I, for one, was not until I learned about it at OCF in college.

[rakovsky]

Carl,

Your view is in line with the passage you quoted from Wikipedia:

Thanks for sharing, Carl:

The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

However, I find this definition confusing. After all, there are shared theological beliefs like monotheism that go beyond mere standards of religious ethics. Plus, even assuming this is the definition, it seems easily confusable, since Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have some important opposing views.

In any case, it's helpful to know this sense in which it's used.

I would think that the opposing views would not be part of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

It makes sense too that opposing views would not be a "common part of their traditions."

However, to me the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" mean that Judaism and Christianity are a "common tradition". So if one considers modern Judaism to mean Rabbinical Judaism, then this term does not make any more sense to me than it does to refer to the "Catholic-Protestant tradition."

Sure, modern Catholicism and Protestantism share an older Catholic tradition, but today the religions by those names today make it a point of distinguishing themselves from eachother.

Now granted a society can create a whole range of illogical terms like guinea pig, which is neither a pig nor does it come from Guinea. But people can have an easy enough time understanding what it is by looking at it. In the case of the term "Judeo-Christian", however, there are folks like Isa who will point to things like Pentecost (see above) as a related element, when in fact it is a holiday that contrasts the two modern religions.

[TheTrisagion]

Carl,

Your view is in line with the passage you quoted from Wikipedia:

Thanks for sharing, Carl:

The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

However, I find this definition confusing. After all, there are shared theological beliefs like monotheism that go beyond mere standards of religious ethics. Plus, even assuming this is the definition, it seems easily confusable, since Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have some important opposing views.

In any case, it's helpful to know this sense in which it's used.

I would think that the opposing views would not be part of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

It makes sense too that opposing views would not be a "common part of their traditions."

However, to me the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" mean that Judaism and Christianity are a "common tradition". So if one considers modern Judaism to mean Rabbinical Judaism, then this term does not make any more sense to me than it does to refer to the "Catholic-Protestant tradition."

Sure, modern Catholicism and Protestantism share an older Catholic tradition, but today the religions by those names today make it a point of distinguishing themselves from eachother.

Now granted a society can create a whole range of illogical terms like guinea pig, which is neither a pig nor does it come from Guinea. But people can have an easy enough time understanding what it is by looking at it. In the case of the term "Judeo-Christian", however, there are folks like Isa who will point to things like Pentecost (see above) as a related element, when in fact it is a holiday that contrasts the two modern religions.

However, we do call them the western tradition, so even though it is not the hyphenated nomenclature, there is a recognition that it has a common tradition. (Much to the chagrin of Protestants)

[Pericles]

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

An eye for an eye is Judaic, Christianity responds with turn the other cheek, thats opposition not commonality.

[recent convert]

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

An eye for an eye is Judaic, Christianity responds with turn the other cheek, thats opposition not commonality.

Making an aspect an entire definition? What about Romans 13:8-10 to keep the basic commandments is St. Paul just "Judaic?"

[sprtslvr1973]

Anti-semitic rhetoric as I can tell

[NicholasMyra]

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

An eye for an eye is Judaic, Christianity responds with turn the other cheek, thats opposition not commonality.

Then you don't understand what an eye for an eye meant.

[Pericles]

Then you don't understand what an eye for an eye meant.

As a matter of fact I do. In a time when retribution meant decimating your emeny, by killing him, his wife, children, cattle and burning his property. In those days 'an eye for an eye' was a move towards moderation and fairness but it was still retaliatory, unlike the Christian 'turn the other cheek'.

[recent convert]

Then you don't understand what an eye for an eye meant.

As a matter of fact I do. In a time when retribution meant decimating your emeny, by killing him, his wife, children, cattle and burning his property. In those days 'an eye for an eye' was a move towards moderation and fairness but it was still retaliatory, unlike the Christian 'turn the other cheek'.

So what is your point? If Christians do not understand this or "get it' after 2,000 years the Gospel was preached by the Lord Jesus Christ, then we are really pathetic. Jews were moving beyond some of these strict applications when the Lord walked the earth.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

An eye for an eye is Judaic, Christianity responds with turn the other cheek, thats opposition not commonality.

To quote my grandson: Well duh!! Those aspects that are not in common are by definition excluded. Please reread the thread, starting February 26th.

[mike]

Anti-semitic rhetoric as I can tell

Nah, just LARP-ing. However one of the most serious cases I've seen on this forum.

[ialmisry]

We are considering whether it is true that there are "standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity." I think that the answer must be a resounding yes.

An eye for an eye is Judaic, Christianity responds with turn the other cheek, thats opposition not commonality.

To quote my grandson: Well duh!! Those aspects that are not in common are by definition excluded. Please reread the thread, starting February 26th.

the very fact that "turn the other cheek" presupposes knowledge of "an eye for an eye" demonstrates a common Judeo-Christian Tradition.  Christ uses the latter as a springboard for the former.

[yeshuaisiam]

However, since you particularly object to this term, then it doesn't seem to match Orthodoxy when you say:

The roots of the Judeo-Christian Tradition can be found in the Jewish Christianity of the first century and later in Arianism.

The problem is that Orthodoxy itself sees the Christianity practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians as a foundational part of Orthodoxy.

I certainly don't think that's the case, the term "Jewish Christianity" refers to Jews that accepted Christ as messiah but rejected his divinity, like the Ebionites, Nazarenes & etc. Jewish Christianity developed out of the Judaizers that Peter had a problem with in Acts. Orthodoxy developed out of Gentile (Greek) Christianity and was in conflict with Judaizing elements until Nicaea. On the basis that Christ and the Apostles believed in and taught the divinity of Christ, Orthodoxy could not have developed out of a beleif system that denied the central tenet of Orthodoxy.

Quick correction, the Nazarenes did believe in the divinity of Christ.   (they did not coin the phrase "trinity" but then again, neither did the gentiles until approx 300 years after the resurrection)

This should be read by everybody.  It's very informational on the Nazarenes (no not church of the Nazarene, but the "non-Gentile" early Christians).
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm

[Asteriktos]

♪ Ohhhhhh Achilles! Let thy arrows fly!
♪ Into the wind, where eagles cross the sky!
♪ Today my mortal blood will mix with sand!
♪ It was foretold: I will dieeeeee by thyyyy hannnnnd
♪ Into Hadessssssssss my soul descends

[theistgal]

♪ Ohhhhhh the Orthodox hate the Catholics
♪ and the Catholics hate the Protestants
♪ and the Protestants hate the Muslims
♪ and everybody hates the Jews!

♪ And the Muslims hate the Orthodox
♪ and they also hate the Catholics
♪ and they also hate the Buddhists
♪ and they definitely hate the Jews!

♪ And the Samaritans hate the Sadducees
♪ and the Sadducees hate the Pharisees
♪ and the Pharisees hate the Gentiles
♪ and everybody hates the Jews!

(with apologies to Tom Lehrer)

[Opus118]

♪ Ohhhhhh the Orthodox hate the Catholics
♪ and the Catholics hate the Protestants
♪ and the Protestants hate the Muslims
♪ and everybody hates the Jews!

♪ And the Muslims hate the Orthodox
♪ and they also hate the Catholics
♪ and they also hate the Buddhists
♪ and they definitely hate the Jews!

♪ And the Samaritans hate the Sadducees
♪ and the Sadducees hate the Pharisees
♪ and the Pharisees hate the Gentiles
♪ and everybody hates the Jews!

(with apologies to Tom Lehrer)

Now that you have done National Brotherhood Week, I hope you will work on the Vatican Rag next. I see no way myself on how to replace genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.

[rakovsky]

♪ Ohhhhhh the Orthodox hate the Catholics ♪ and everybody hates the Jews! ♪ And the Muslims hate the Orthodox

Orthodoxy doesn't hate people, as the Bible even says to love enemies.

The clearest example that Orthodox don't hate Catholics is that they do not have to get re-baptized when they become Orthodox. Also, Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

As I understand it, the least-liked religious group in America is actually the atheists.

Finally, I highly doubt that Muslims hate Orthodox as a blanket rule. In fact, there is an amount of respect for them as People of the Book, and despite wars and even harsh discrimination, they generally teach that Orthodox are allowed to keep and practice their religion, which is not what they teach regarding pagan religions.

Nonetheless, why do we have to accept whatever a government, society, or religious community does, without criticism? In fact, shouldn't one oppose their abuses?

[mike]

The clearest example that Orthodox don't hate Catholics is that they do not have to get re-baptized when they become Orthodox. Also, Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

When?

[Orthodox11]

The clearest example that Orthodox don't hate Catholics is that they do not have to get re-baptized when they become Orthodox. Also, Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

Besides the fact that this is simply inaccurate - there is no situation in which intercommunion is permitted, and several jurisdictions insist on the baptism of converts from Roman Catholicism - the idea that "re-baptism" is a sign of hatred makes no sense. Do Orthodox despise all non-Christians because we baptise them into the faith?

[rakovsky]

The clearest example that Orthodox don't hate Catholics is that they do not have to get re-baptized when they become Orthodox. Also, Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

When?

Mike,

This happened a few years ago. I clearly remember reading about it on an Orthodox website that discussed his position in a serious way, and I posted on it here at OC.net. I regret that I do not have the link to the article.

A quick internet search turned up some Orthodox sites claiming "intercommunion" was established, but I think this is too strong a term.

[rakovsky]

several jurisdictions insist on the baptism of converts from Roman Catholicism - the idea that "re-baptism" is a sign of hatred makes no sense. Do Orthodox despise all non-Christians because we baptise them into the faith?

Of course you are right. The limited respect for Catholic rites though seemed to me a particularly notable counterargument to the mistaken accusation about "hating Catholics."

[theistgal]

♪ Ohhhhhh the Orthodox hate the Catholics ♪ and everybody hates the Jews! ♪ And the Muslims hate the Orthodox

Orthodoxy doesn't hate people, as the Bible even says to love enemies.

Are you familiar with a wonderful new concept called "humor"?

[mike]

The clearest example that Orthodox don't hate Catholics is that they do not have to get re-baptized when they become Orthodox. Also, Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

When?

Mike,

This happened a few years ago. I clearly remember reading about it on an Orthodox website that discussed his position in a serious way, and I posted on it here at OC.net. I regret that I do not have the link to the article.

Nothing but gossips? OK.

[KostaC]

Yes, but since most jews were not hellenized, Christianity still sprung up in a jewish culture. It's theology has its origins in the jewish faith.

Apart from the fact that Christianity emerged in Galilee not Judaea. Well of course it sprung up in a Jewish context as part of a wider Hellenistic gentile world yet it was from the start a stand-alone religion and not a sect of Judaism. Orthodox Christian theology would not be possible without Hellenistic learning; the Trinity and incarnation are simply not possible in Judaism, no way not ever.

How about the times in Genesis where God refers to Himself in the plural, that's got to count for something.

[rakovsky]

Patriarch Bartholemew said that when there is no church of one's denomination within a commutable distance, they (Orthodox or Catholics) can commune in the other's church, as I understand it.

This happened a few years ago. I clearly remember reading about it on an Orthodox website that discussed his position in a serious way, and I posted on it here at OC.net.

gossips?

I searched the web and found this:

Great turmoil was created when [Patriarch] Dimitrios announced that by extreme economy and unconditionally, in case of the dying, Holy Communion could be received from a Roman Catholic priest (see Macedonia, No. 7/8, 1987).
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/quovadis.aspx

However, I was actually referring to the 1975 Thyateira Confession.

It states:

“When they are not near a Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics are permitted to receive the Holy Communion in Orthodox Churches; and the same is also extended to Orthodox when they are not near an Orthodox Church.”

This is quoted in the commentary about it, from which another quote is below:

The Thyateira Confession , by Archbishop Athenagoras (Kokkinakis) of Thyateira and Great Britain, was printed “With the Blessing and Authorization of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople” in 1975.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy_demetrios.shtml

[orthonorm]

♪ Ohhhhhh the Orthodox hate the Catholics ♪ and everybody hates the Jews! ♪ And the Muslims hate the Orthodox

Orthodoxy doesn't hate people, as the Bible even says to love enemies.

Are you familiar with a wonderful new concept called "humor"?

Make it rhyme next time, yo.