Why do Christians side with Jews more than Muslims?

[Saint Frankenstein]

That can be said about Judaism which holds both Christianity and Islam heretical although they both have a relationship with Judaism. That doesn't make you more right and them wrong but only in your mind.



No, because for one, all three have the same prophets with the exception of Muhammad in Judaism and Christianity.



Ok this I get. So basically, in your view Judaism and Islam is wrong because they do not simply accept Jesus as their lord and savior correct? For that according to Christian eschatology their denial of Jesus' divinity will doom them to hell?



Correct.



If you were in a position of power, how would you promote this?



I don't know why people are bringing this up considering I never mentioned Zionism in the beginning.



That is an interesting position considering you'd be at odds and potentially in a shouting match with evangelical Christians.

All I was doing was reiterating the traditional stance of Christianity towards those religions. Both reject Christ as Lord, God, Savior and both reject the Sacraments. So both are false religions in view of the Gospel (not trying to insult). No, it doesn't make sense for Christians to love modern Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism. Many of them hate Christianity and even Christians ourselves. Some of them think Jesus is boiling in a vat of fecal matter for eternity. How these offensive views are glossed over is a mystery to me. If you are a Trinitarian, then these people are literally insulting God Himself with the height of blasphemy and sacrilege. Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and obviously Jesus didn't like them much.

As for Muslims, at least they do recognize Christ as the Messiah and a Prophet but it's still different from the Christian view. They don't recognize Him as God, most don't think He was crucified and so certainly would not believe in the Resurrection. There is a popular belief that Jesus will return and break the Cross, meaning that Jesus will show Christian beliefs to be false. Obviously that's not acceptable to a Christian. It is interesting that the Muslims share a love with traditional Christians of Mary, including viewing her as ever-virgin, which even most Protestants wouldn't agree with. So perhaps a Christian could view Islam as having some potential (whereas Jews have said that Mary was a fornicator or was raped by a Roman soldier and that Christ was "*******" (forgive me for even typing that, Lord)).

As to what I said about the churches' spinelessness about the issue, I'm just saying they need to clarify their doctrine as to the possibility of the salvation of Jews and Muslims. If I was in a position of power, I would just say what is in the Gospel. That's not an endorsement of hatred. Even St. Paul said that Gentile Christians should not boast above Jews because we were grafted onto the tree and so should be humble (Romans 11). So anti-Semitism from Christians is sinful, even if Judaism is a false religion. God obviously still has a plan for the Jewish people.

 

[74x12]

This thread is about theology

Well that changes my perspective on this thread then. Theologically; Christianity is more similar to Judaism because we believe all the same scriptures. We just often disagree on the interpretation. In fact it must be pointed out that Christianity is a religion based off of the Jewish Messiah. Whoever wants to be Christian must believe in the Jewish Messiah.

Islam on the other hand teaches that only the Koran is trustworthy and that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures have been altered and are corrupt.

 

[Sunstone]

All Middle Eastern nations appear to me to be screwed up -- often worse than America -- but so long as Israel is a relatively more democratic and open nation than its Muslim neighbors, I will side with Israel (while reserving the right to criticize many of its policies, especially as regards the Palestinians and Occupied Territories).

As for Christians -- specifically American Evangelical Christians -- I think their reasons for supporting Israel are about as screwed up as the average Middle Eastern country.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well that changes my perspective on this thread then. Theologically; Christianity is more similar to Judaism because we believe all the same scriptures. We just often disagree on the interpretation. In fact it must be pointed out that Christianity is a religion based off of the Jewish Messiah. Whoever wants to be Christian must believe in the Jewish Messiah.

Islam on the other hand teaches that only the Koran is trustworthy and that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures have been altered and are corrupt.

To be fair, Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians, both Eastern and Oriental (not the same), have differing canonical texts in their Bibles. Those two denominations alone (Catholic and Orthodox) are the majority of Christians and Christian history. Jews and Protestants have the least amount of scriptures. It might help to explain why Christian Zionism is basically entirely an Evangelical Protestant thing.

 

[74x12]

To be fair, Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians, both Eastern and Oriental (not the same), have differing canonical texts in their Bibles. Those two denominations alone (Catholic and Orthodox) are the majority of Christians and Christian history. Jews and Protestants have the least amount of scriptures.

But both of those groups at least agree that all the same books canonized by Jews and Protestants are also canon. So even they have that in common with Judaism.

As for the history of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. It's obvious that they arise from political rather than theological power. The double headed eagle. Rome remained the capital of the west but the east would now be ruled from Constantinople. There were two Caesars from then on. At least until Rome fell to barbarians. But the political divide obviously precipitated the theological divide between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. The Roman empire never died. The Pope continued through religious power what Rome could not do through martial strength any longer. So these two churches are so supreme not because of a superior grasp of theology or even apostolic succession. But because of politics.

There were other churches after all that were clearly overwhelmed or absorbed by the political might of Rome/Constantinople. For example the first church was in Jerusalem and was largely Jewish. But it's conveniently swept aside in favor of the churches seated in the two capitals of the Roman empire. No offense to Catholics or Orthodox Christians.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But both of those groups at least agree that all the same books canonized by Jews and Protestants are also canon. So even they have that in common with Judaism.

As for the history of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. It's obvious that they arise from political rather than theological power. The double headed eagle. Rome remained the capital of the west but the east would now be ruled from Constantinople. There were two Caesars from then on. At least until Rome fell to barbarians. But the political divide obviously precipitated the theological divide between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. The Roman empire never died. The Pope continued through religious power what Rome could not do through martial strength any longer. So these two churches are so supreme not because of a superior grasp of theology or even apostolic succession. But because of politics.

There were other churches after all that were clearly overwhelmed or absorbed by the political might of Rome/Constantinople. For example the first church was in Jerusalem and was largely Jewish. But it's conveniently swept aside in favor of the churches seated in the two capitals of the Roman empire. No offense to Catholics or Orthodox Christians.

Well, that's a Protestant explanation, which didn't exist before the 16th century. The Catholic and Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern) Churches are the original Church when combined before the 4th century.

The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament that Christ quoted from the most but that's rejected by Jews and most modern Protestant sects in favor of the Masoretic Text. Just something to think about.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You're still mistaking the conflict for a theological problem, when it isn't.

Both Christianity and Islam are fundamentally imperial ideologies. Other world religions are not. That's why Islam and Christianity are so much more in conflict than either is with Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever.
Tom

Buddhism has never had a violent history attached to let’s say the Shogunate wars in Japan? Or what about in India? Do we blame Shamanism because Genghis Khan believed in it? You don’t think polytheism has had their hand in imperialism need I remind you the Roman Empire itself was fueled by the belief in the gods? Every religion has had its hand in the cookie jar.

You think Judaism is any different? Regardless of the size of the empire or it’s duration there have been horrors in all the popular faiths. You’re bringing it back to geopolitics I’m talking theology because theology does play an important part.

 

[Augustus]

When Saladin took Jerusalem back what did he do? He allowed anyone wanting to leave safely.

Somewhat of a romantic myth of the 'noble savage' that developed from Sir Water Scott's 'The Talisman' among other sources.

Saladin initially demanded an unconditional surrender which was rejected. He then rejected an offer of a negotiated surrender, after which Balian threatened to destroy the city rather than seeing it taken by force.

This lead to Saladin accepting a negotiated surrender, but he didn't allow anyone who wanted to leave safely. He ransomed the population, and enslaved thousands of those who couldn't pay.

The comparison with the Crusader taking of the city is not comparing apples with apples, as they took the city by force not via negotiation. If a city refused to surrender, it was common in medieval warfare to show little mercy to the residents as this served as an 'example' to other cities. The sack was undoubtedly vicious, although often exaggerated, but this was not uncommon in that era. When later Muslim armies took Acre (not under Saladin), for example, the inhabitants were killed.

For the same reason that these who refused to surrender were often slaughtered, negotiated settlements tended to be honoured to serve as a good example to other cities. People generally didn't want to risk their armies assaulting walled cities and then have to spend a fortune rebuilding. Much better to take the city in good condition along with a payment for safe conduct.

Saladin was probably above average in terms of chivalry, which is to his credit, and was respected by contemporaries, but he wasn't the figure of European imagination constructed in 18th/19th C Romantic tradition.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

[QUOTE="dianaiad, post: 5849829, member: 25717"

I've never heard of Jews persecuting Christians in Israel. At least, there's no beheading going on, or jail terms, or whatever.

Since this is a matter of fact, not opinion, the religious opinions of the person stating them has no bearing on whether the facts are what they are.

At least, that's been my experience.

On the other hand, what do I know? I've only been around for seven decades.[/QUOTE]

So religion doesn’t matter it’s about how one is treated, got it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Somewhat of a romantic myth of the 'noble savage' that developed from Sir Water Scott's 'The Talisman' among other sources.

Saladin initially demanded an unconditional surrender which was rejected. He then rejected an offer of a negotiated surrender, after which Balian threatened to destroy the city rather than seeing it taken by force.

This lead to Saladin accepting a negotiated surrender, but he didn't allow anyone who wanted to leave safely. He ransomed the population, and enslaved thousands of those who couldn't pay.

The comparison with the Crusader taking of the city is not comparing apples with apples, as they took the city by force not via negotiation. If a city refused to surrender, it was common in medieval warfare to show little mercy to the residents as this served as an 'example' to other cities. The sack was undoubtedly vicious, although often exaggerated, but this was not uncommon in that era. When later Muslim armies took Acre (not under Saladin), for example, the inhabitants were killed.

For the same reason that these who refused to surrender were often slaughtered, negotiated settlements tended to be honoured to serve as a good example to other cities. People generally didn't want to risk their armies assaulting walled cities and then have to spend a fortune rebuilding. Much better to take the city in good condition along with a payment for safe conduct.

Saladin was probably above average in terms of chivalry, which is to his credit, and was respected by contemporaries, but he wasn't the figure of European imagination constructed in 18th/19th C Romantic tradition.

Source?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And it's not permissible for a Christian to pray in either. I don't see what your point is in making this claim. From what I gather, your entire point is "Why do Christians side more with the Jews if the Jews side with the Muslims?" Do you therefore think that we should side with the Muslims instead, who we have a significantly worse history with?

I don't know any serious Christian scholars who actually claim that Muslims worship a moon-deity. The only people I've ever seen make that argument have been quacks. One could just as confidently argue that Jews and Christians worship a storm god.

Allow me to quote another post I made to you:

"Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Pakistan, Boko Haram, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, the Fatimids, al-Andalus..."

Orthodox Christians were killed in the Crusader onslaught too. And they were being killed by the Crusaders long before the latter got to Jerusalem. Again, not sure how the Crusades came into this conversation.

Because that's the historical reality we lived under. The Islamic modus operandi was to place Christians and Jews under political and social pressure to renounce their faiths and become Muslim. It worked on most of the Bosnians, Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians and Albanians. It might have eventually ended up working in Greece, Romania and Serbia.

An abused wife doesn't excuse her husband's abuse because of the "good aspects" of the relationship. Whatever good came out of the Islamic Golden Age doesn't excuse their oppression and cultural/military genocide of Christians.

Alright, and we say the Muslims are wrong for rejecting the Gospels and Jesus' Divinity and for calling Muhammad a prophet, and the Jews say the Muslims are wrong for calling Jesus the Messiah and calling the Tanakh corrupt. We all think the other two religions are wrong in one way or another. Your point is?


Great, that's what Maimonides says. I know Orthodox Jews who will say that Orthodox Christianity has a much more similar ethos to Orthodox Judaism than Islam does. Christians have also called Jews apostates throughout the millennia for rejecting Jesus, and thereby rejecting God. Again, we all say that the other two religions are wrong on theological grounds. At least the Jews accept the Law and the Prophets. In our eyes, Islam doesn't accept the Law or the Prophets or Jesus; the way we see it, Muhammad just made up his own version of all of these. So even from a Christian theological perspective, Judaism has a closer kinship to us than does Islam. We share a vast amount of scriptures and history. Islam shares none of that with us. Islam says they have all the same prophets as Judaism and Christianity, yet uses none of the texts from either the Gospels or the Tanakh unless they're trying to convert us. At least we can relate to Judaism. Islam is just utterly foreign.

Where in Islamic theology is it foreign?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The views that these people hold are absolutely irrelevant as far as 85% of the world's Christians are concerned. They're a VERY small minority; basically every single Christian denomination that is actually established in the Levant dismisses them out of hand. The Rapture as a belief is only about 200 years old.


Evangelical Christians are 1: a very new branch of American Christianity, and 2: utterly irrelevant outside the American sphere of influence. So their opinions really have no bearing on me or on 90% of Christians worldwide.

Small? They along with evangelicals in the US government play a huge role regardless of their statistic size.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Christian faith is rooted in the parables taught by a Jew

in ancient times religion was enforced....by sword
when Moses came down from the Mount
3,000 of his own people were killed
something about a false idol

swords drawn.....people dying
seems Islam has a similar practice

I don't follow Muhammad, or Moses

and the Carpenter is my Inspiration

otherwise
I don't follow anyone
and no one follows me

no religion

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

All I was doing was reiterating the traditional stance of Christianity towards those religions. Both reject Christ as Lord, God, Savior and both reject the Sacraments. So both are false religions in view of the Gospel (not trying to insult). No, it doesn't make sense for Christians to love modern Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism. Many of them hate Christianity and even Christians ourselves. Some of them think Jesus is boiling in a vat of fecal matter for eternity. How these offensive views are glossed over is a mystery to me. If you are a Trinitarian, then these people are literally insulting God Himself with the height of blasphemy and sacrilege. Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and obviously Jesus didn't like them much.

As for Muslims, at least they do recognize Christ as the Messiah and a Prophet but it's still different from the Christian view. They don't recognize Him as God, most don't think He was crucified and so certainly would not believe in the Resurrection. There is a popular belief that Jesus will return and break the Cross, meaning that Jesus will show Christian beliefs to be false. Obviously that's not acceptable to a Christian. It is interesting that the Muslims share a love with traditional Christians of Mary, including viewing her as ever-virgin, which even most Protestants wouldn't agree with. So perhaps a Christian could view Islam as having some potential (whereas Jews have said that Mary was a fornicator or was raped by a Roman soldier and that Christ was "*******" (forgive me for even typing that, Lord)).

As to what I said about the churches' spinelessness about the issue, I'm just saying they need to clarify their doctrine as to the possibility of the salvation of Jews and Muslims. If I was in a position of power, I would just say what is in the Gospel. That's not an endorsement of hatred. Even St. Paul said that Gentile Christians should not boast above Jews because we were grafted onto the tree and so should be humble (Romans 11). So anti-Semitism from Christians is sinful, even if Judaism is a false religion. God obviously still has a plan for the Jewish people.

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well that changes my perspective on this thread then. Theologically; Christianity is more similar to Judaism because we believe all the same scriptures. We just often disagree on the interpretation. In fact it must be pointed out that Christianity is a religion based off of the Jewish Messiah. Whoever wants to be Christian must believe in the Jewish Messiah.

Islam on the other hand teaches that only the Koran is trustworthy and that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures have been altered and are corrupt.

Quoting on your last paragraph is that all what Islam teaches?

 

[Augustus]

Source?

Knowledge of history. It's not hard to find out.

Which parts of it do you think are wrong?

 

[FearGod]

The bottom line is, Christians are severely persecuted in Muslim countries. It is rare (if ever) to hear about Jews instituting harsh policies against non-jews or robbing people of free speech, for religious reasons.

Lebanon is mixed Muslims with Christians, Syria as well.
Jews were living in peace with Muslims and Christians just a hundred year ago
whereas Christians which you're proud of compared to Muslims have prosecuted
the Jews in what called the Holocaust, Christians have eradicated 500000 Japanese
by the nuclear bomb, they caused the first and the second world war and they'll cause
the 3rd world war to occur.

Christians have killed thousands of Iraqis, Christians along with fundamentalists Muslims
killed Yemenis, Christians with fundamentalists Muslims destroyed Afghanistan.

What's common between all is the evil, keep supporting the evil

 

[Estro Felino]

@Epic Beard Man
You still won't face the fact that there is an abyssal difference between the atmosphere you can perceive in a synagogue\church (of singing, joy, festivity)

Spoiler: Syn\church

...and the disturbing, heated atmosphere you can perceive in "certain mosques"

Spoiler

 

[Shiranui117]

Small? They along with evangelicals in the US government play a huge role regardless of their statistic size.

Great, they're influential in one country where they're still not even a majority. Now think about Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Serbia, Poland, Italy, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Germany, the UK, Finland, Sweden, South Africa, Egypt, the entirety of Latin America, or any other country on the face of the earth that has Christians. American Evangelicalism is a fringe in the rest of the world, if it exists at all. I would have to explain what the heck I mean by "Evangelicals" to most anyone on the face of the planet. It just isn't on the radars of Christians worldwide, except to say how weird some segments of American Christianity can be.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Knowledge of history. It's not hard to find out.

Which parts of it do you think are wrong?

Never said wrong just asked for a source