• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition

Akivah

Well-Known Member
While I agree that the Judeo-Christian term is nonsensical, I disagree that it advances replacement theory. That has been around for centuries.
 

xkatz

Well-Known Member
While I agree that the Judeo-Christian term is nonsensical, I disagree that it advances replacement theory. That has been around for centuries.
I disagree with your disagreement. The only context I have seen "Judeo-Christian" explicitly mentioned is in a modern conservative evangelical Christian one. To them, it's usually all about replacement theology and spiritual gifts.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I definitely agree with the article and have said so myself many times. I can't say for sure that it advances replacement theory, but it definitely helps ease one into such an idea.

For the most part though, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that most Christians don't really realize how dissimilar Judaism actually is from Christianity. My experience has been that they have difficulty swallowing that it is halachically easier to walk into a mosque than a church. They just assume since Christianity has Jewish roots, it must share core beliefs.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
We must read different things. Whenever I see the Judeo-Christian term in print, someone is usually talking about what they think the American Founders based America on.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I definitely agree with the article and have said so myself many times. I can't say for sure that it advances replacement theory, but it definitely helps ease one into such an idea.

For the most part though, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that most Christians don't really realize how dissimilar Judaism actually is from Christianity. My experience has been that they have difficulty swallowing that it is halachically easier to walk into a mosque than a church. They just assume since Christianity has Jewish roots, it must share core beliefs.

Frubal to you! That is spot on. Most xians think Judaism is the exact same as their religion, with the exception of their man.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I assume that most people who speak of "Judeo-Christian" in no way intend to promote replacement theology. I also assume that most people who talk about being gypped in no way intend to denigrate the Romani.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
That was an excellent piece, no question.

I don't know that "Judeo-Christian" by definition must indicate promotion of replacement or supercessionist theology-- that seems like a bit of a leap. But I do think that it often does, whether the user of the term consciously understands the implications of the term and associated concepts or not.

I have thought for some time that the increasing prevalence of boundary-blurring language like "Judeo-Christian" in American parlance may be one contributor among many to stimulating assimilation on the secular fringes of Judaism, and in stimulating the flourishing of pseudo-Jewish evangelical Christian sects, like J4J.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I have thought for some time that the increasing prevalence of boundary-blurring language like "Judeo-Christian" in American parlance may be one contributor among many to stimulating assimilation on the secular fringes of Judaism, and in stimulating the flourishing of pseudo-Jewish evangelical Christian sects, like J4J.
I think this is an excellent point.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I assume that most people who speak of "Judeo-Christian" in no way intend to promote replacement theology. I also assume that most people who talk about being gypped in no way intend to denigrate the Romani.
As an outsider who has used the term the first part is true. I have no idea what the second part means. Nor do I understand how it would be replacement theology. General the term has been used as we might use the term Abrahamic. Is that an ok term ? I do see the issue to often christian ideas and ideals get summed up as Jewish. /in fact use of the term deluded me into thinking i had an idea what Judaism is about (i was completely off)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
As an outsider who has used the term the first part is true. I have no idea what the second part means. Nor do I understand how it would be replacement theology. General the term has been used as we might use the term Abrahamic. Is that an ok term ? I do see the issue to often christian ideas and ideals get summed up as Jewish. /in fact use of the term deluded me into thinking i had an idea what Judaism is about (i was completely off)
I think both "Abrahamic" and "Judeo-Christian" are at best unhelpful.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
I think both "Abrahamic" and "Judeo-Christian" are at best unhelpful.

Agreed. IMO, "Abrahamic" is the same kind of boundary-blurring, obfuscatory language as "Judeo-Christian," only it rolls in Islam, and sometimes a few other religions, as well.

Merely to have some common philosophical ancestry (which usually means having come from, or been deeply influenced by Judaism) is not enough to equate the ideologies and theologies of different religions, much less conflate them. They are different, and should be thought of as different-- not necessarily better or worse, more or less authentic, just different.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
At least with Abrahamic, there is room to conceptualize one figure birthing three distinct religions to some extent. It's not a helpful term in properly creating a distinction. But it leaves wiggle room subconsciously at least.
Judeo-Christian though is downright misleading. Is suggests a similarity where there is none. I think its much worse. And the fact that its part of the American mentality only compounds the problem.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
At least with Abrahamic, there is room to conceptualize one figure birthing three distinct religions to some extent.
In my opinion Christianity was "birthed" in the diaspora by gentiles and Hellenized Jews. Co-opting our texts as an "Old Testament" (while campaigning against the 'Judaizers') gives it no claim to our traditions.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Judaism and Xianity are so different, that other than the word "religion", I don't think any term can be used to accurately lump them together.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
I definitely agree with the article and have said so myself many times. I can't say for sure that it advances replacement theory, but it definitely helps ease one into such an idea.

For the most part though, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that most Christians don't really realize how dissimilar Judaism actually is from Christianity. My experience has been that they have difficulty swallowing that it is halachically easier to walk into a mosque than a church. They just assume since Christianity has Jewish roots, it must share core beliefs.

In my journey from Christianity to Judaism, and the myriad of discussions I've had by those Christians trying to win me back, I have really come to see this very clearly, and I can understand why it is the case. For the average professing Christian who was raised in the Christian faith the only way to look at the Bible is through a Christianized lens. It's not until one is able to make the "suppose I read this as if I weren't already a Christian" leap that it all becomes clear.

Ultimately that's what did it for me. I took a step back and said, "If I read this as if I have no opinion on it, Jewish or Christian, what conclusions can I make?" and the rational outcome was that it's impossible to see Christianity as anything other than a poor perversion of Jewish scriptures in pursuit of a worldview that preys on the weak and emotionally needy.

As much as I dislike speaking badly about other religions, the more that I deal with the stark differences between Judaism and Christianity, the more I feel that the religion itself is a terrible thing.

Granted, I don't blame the people for what most of them have no real control over having been raised with a paradigm that discourages honest criticism, but I see it pouring into every aspect of American society. God forbid they learn you're Jewish, because then it becomes this pathetic attempt to bring you to the "true Jewish religion" (a problem I'm currently dealing with in an acquaintance of mine).
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
I think both "Abrahamic" and "Judeo-Christian" are at best unhelpful.
As a non-Jew, I'm not sure I'm allowed here — I got deleted last time — but at least I can give you a frubal. I've always found these terms meaningless from a scholarly point of view and I'm interested to find that they are unacceptable in Judaism. I don't think the Christians who use them mean any harm: they just haven't bothered to think what they're talking about.
 

dantech

Well-Known Member
As a non-Jew, I'm not sure I'm allowed here — I got deleted last time — but at least I can give you a frubal. I've always found these terms meaningless from a scholarly point of view and I'm interested to find that they are unacceptable in Judaism. I don't think the Christians who use them mean any harm: they just haven't bothered to think what they're talking about.

Just like calling our scripture the Old Testament
 
Top