1
21
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml to c/christianity@hexbear.net

(This takes approx. twelve minutes to read.)

Many familiar with the subject of Jewish life under premodern European Christendom frequently summarize it as an unending dystopia: Christian society not only impoverished Judaists in dilapidated ghetti but also figuratively and literally demonized, humiliated, tormented, expelled, and massacred Judaists.

That persecution certainly should not be overlooked, but it is also true that many premodern Christians (mostly lower‐class ones) befriended, assisted, defended, and cohabited with Judaists. These instances demonstrate that Jewish life under Christendom did not have to be dystopian.

Quoting Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, pages 689:

There is recent physical evidence (or what insiders sometimes call realia) suggesting that the Christian and Jewish communities remained closely linked—intertwined, even—until far later than is consistent with claims about the early and absolute break between church and synagogue. The realia are both archaeological and documentary.

Eric Meyers (1983, 1988) reported that a wealth of archaeological findings in Italy (especially in Rome and Venosa) show that “Jewish and Christian burials reflect an interdependent and closely related community of Jews and Christians in which clear marks of demarcation were blurred until the third and fourth centuries C.E.” (1988:73–74).

Shifting to data from Palestine, Meyers noted excavations in Capernaum (on the shores of the Sea of Galilee) that reveal “a Jewish synagogue and a Jewish–Christian house church on opposite sides of the street. […] Following the strata and the structures, both communities apparently lived in harmony until the seventh century C.E.” (1988:76). Finally, Meyers suggested that only when a triumphant Christianity began, late in the fourth century, to pour money into Palestine for church building and shrines was there any serious rupture with Jews.

Roger Bagnall reported a surviving papyrus (P.Oxy. 44) from the year 400 wherein a man “explicitly described as a Jew” leased a ground‐floor room and a basement storage room in a house from two Christian sisters described as apotactic monastics:

The rent is in line with other lease payments for parts of the city known from the period, and the whole transaction is distinguished by its routineness. All the same, the sight of two Christian nuns letting out two rooms in their house to a Jewish man has much to say about not only the flexibility of the monastic life but also the ordinariness of [Christian–Jewish] relationships. (1993: 277–278 )

These data may strike social scientists as thin, but they seem far less ambiguous and far more reliable than the evidence with which students of antiquity must usually work.

Markus Bockmuehl’s “Friendship between Jews and Christians in Antiquity” in Looking In, Looking Out: Jews and Non‐Jews in Mutual Contemplation, pages 3089:

Chrysostom’s ill‐mannered rant eloquently attests the strength of what he rejects the widespread pattern of friendly social and religious relations between two remarkably interconnected communities. Christians kept feasts and fasts in the synagogues for the great autumn festivals of Rosh Ha‐Shanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot (Adv. Jud. 1.1.5), as well as Passover (3.3.6, 3.6.7; 4.4.4–5.4).⁵² A woman was required by a fellow Christian to seal a business transaction by an apparently superior oath in the synagogue (1.3.4).

Chrysostom’s concern at the widely intertwined lives of Christians and Jews was equally shared by church authorities in Asia Minor, including in Phrygia. The influential Council of Laodicea (c.363) sought to ban Christians from Sabbath‐keeping (Canon 29), celebrating festivals of the Jews or accepting gifts from them on such occasions (37), or indeed from eating their unleavened bread (38).⁵³

Meanwhile, by the late fourth century, Christians had long tended and perhaps appropriated the cult of the Maccabean martyrs, somewhat curiously translated to Antioch.⁵⁴

Despite Chrysostom’s best efforts, Antioch clearly showed very little inclination to effect a definitive “parting of the ways,” even while Christianity gained political and cultural ascendancy during the fourth century.

Chrysostom’s own teacher Libanius of Antioch (314–393), a prominent rhetorician and friend of the Emperor Julian, fostered networks of acquaintance with both Jews and Christians and numbered several future church fathers among his students. He corresponded with Priscianus the Governor of Palestine on behalf of the Jewish community and expressed to the Jewish Patriarch (probably Gamaliel V) his distress at recent harassment of the Jewish people.⁵⁵

In such relationships with both intertwined communities, this public intellectual attached great importance “to friendship […], to the rule of law and justice, and to divinely inspired human community as the essential foundation for human welfare.”⁵⁶

Jonathan Elukin’s Living Together, Living Apart: Rethinking Jewish–Christian Relations in the Middle Ages, pages 1415:

As Severus looked back to a time before the period of conflict, he recalls that relations between Jews and Christians had been marked by a warm civility. “In the end,” he writes, “even the obligation of greeting one another was suddenly broken off, and not only was our old habit of easy acquaintance disrupted, but the sinful appearance of our longstanding affection was transformed into temporary hatred, though for love of eternal salvation.”¹¹

The bishop could not create a false history of the island where Christians had always been antagonistic toward Jews. Some kind of social peace had prevailed before the arrival of the relics. That was what was so galling to the radicalized cleric.

In addition to the normal bonds of neighbors, Jews and Christians shared a common liturgical culture based on Scripture. This connection was apparent even to Severus when he remembered the preliminaries to a debate between the two communities. As Jews and Christians marched together to a synagogue for a public debate, “along the way we began to sing a hymn to Christ in our abundance of joy. Moreover, the psalm was ‘Their memory has perished with a crash and the Lord endures forever’ [Ps. 9:7–8], and the throng of Jews also began to sing it with a wondrous sweetness.”¹²

Did the two groups use the same tune, or did Jews sing in Latin or Greek with the Christians? Or did the Jews recognize the psalm and begin a counter singing in Hebrew? Whatever the case, Severus recognized that the intimate sounds of liturgical music and a shared if contested Scripture connected the two communities.

Joshua Trachtenberg’s The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, pages 159161:

It is a striking consideration, in this regard, that despite the virulent anti‐Jewish campaign of the early Church, relations between Jews and Christians were not materially embittered. Indeed, the period between the break‐up of the Roman Empire and the Crusades—roughly the sixth to the eleventh centuries—was comparatively favorable for the Jews.

Their unhappy experience in Visigothic Spain after its conversion from Arianism to Catholicism and the wave of expulsions during the seventh century were the result of official antagonism rather than of any strongly felt popular resentment. In general it may be said that social and economic relations remained good. Some Christians continued for a long time to observe their feasts and festivals on the Jewish dates and together with Jews.

The constantly reiterated fulminations of Church authorities against close social and religious intercourse between the two groups (“It comes to such a pass that uneducated Christians say that Jews preach better to them than our priests,” complained Agobard ¹), against eating and drinking and living with Jews, testify to their unimpaired and cordial intimacy. Even the clergy had to be forbidden from time to time to be friendly with Jews.

Reporting his amicable discussions with Rabbi Simeon Hasid of Treves, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster in the eleventh century, says: “He often used to come to me as a friend both for business and to see me […] and as often as we came together we would soon get talking in a friendly spirit about the Scriptures and our faith.” ² In the tenth and eleventh centuries we hear of Jews receiving gifts from Gentile friends on Jewish holidays, of Jew leaving the keys to their homes with Christian neighbors before departing on a journey.

In Champagne, where Jews engaged extensively in viticulture and wine making, they freely employed Gentiles in their vineyards, and the rabbis set aside the ancient ritual prohibition against the use of this wine on the ground that Christians are not idolaters. Christians took service in Jewish homes as nurses and domestics, and Jewish traders dealt in ecclesiastical articles. Business relations were markedly free and close, and there are many instances of commercial partnerships between adherents of the two faiths.

Nor did the sporadic dissemination of anti‐Jewish propaganda by clerical preachment disturb these generally amicable relations sufficiently to arouse a sense of insecurity and alienness on the part of the Jew. The Jews of France, for instance, called the French language “our language,” and some eminent scholars of this period bore French names, e.g., Judah HaKohen, who was known as Léontin, and Joseph, known as Bonfils.

The use of French names was even more marked in England, where Norman French was the vernacular of the Jews no less than of the aristocracy; and a similar process of cultural adaptation prevailed throughout Central and Southern Europe. These are assuredly tokens of a cultural and social affinity which could not have flourished in an atmosphere of unrelieved suspicion and hostility.³

It will not do to idealize this situation; the distinction between the earlier and the later medieval periods, so far as the popular attitude toward the Jew is concerned, must not be overly formalized. Even in the earlier period, of course, there were signs pointing toward the later attitude, but they multiplied very slowly at first and gathered momentum only in the twelfth and the succeeding centuries, until the slowly changing picture was wholly transformed by that unmitigated hatred of the Jew which we have come to characterize as medieval.

Christopher Tuckwood’s From Real Friend to Imagined Foe: The Medieval Roots of Anti‐Semitism as a Precondition for the Holocaust:

Other sources confirm that it was common at the time for Christians and Jews to dine together on kosher food, discuss religious ideas, and for Christians to adopt Jewish customs such as resting on Saturday and celebrating Jewish holidays while neglecting their own. Such practices likely even extended to the imperial court, and clerical alarm is thus not surprising.¹²

Katherine Aron‐Beller’s Christian Images and Their Jewish Desecrators: The History of an Allegation, 400–1700, pages 106107:

When the anonymous Christian author of the 1286 Majorca disputation addressed the Christian practice of using images and crosses in churches, the Christian interlocutor Inghetto Contardo, having been accused of idolatry by his Jewish opponent, put forward an unusual argument.⁷ He rejected the accusation by suggesting that if there was a [humanitarian] need, he would destroy an image himself:

We do not venerate idols and images but we venerate the God of heaven, the Father, and His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. […] And indeed I say to you that if I had a wooden cross or image, and I had nothing with which to heat water for my Christian brother, or my Jewish friend were they to fall sick, I would put the cross and the image in the fire and burn them.

Robert Chazan’s “Philosemitic Tendencies in Medieval Western Christendom” in Philosemitism in History, pages 47–8:

Jewish sources recurrently mention pleas on the part of friendly Christians to Jews, urging the latter to convert in order to save themselves. These pleas do not seem to have been inspired by genuine missionizing ardor. Rather, they seem to reflect the simple desire of Christians to save Jewish neighbors at all costs.

The story of the Jews of Regensburg is told elliptically in the Solomon bar Simson Narrative: The burghers of Regensburg “pressed them [the Jews of the town] against their will and brought them into a certain river. They made the evil sign in the water — the cross — and baptized them all simultaneously in that river.”³² The fact that the Jews of Regensburg are reported to have returned almost immediately to Judaism reinforces the sense of an act performed by well‐intentioned burghers in order to save endangered Jewish neighbors.

Curious and intriguing evidence of warm Christian–Jewish relations is available from more peaceful circumstances as well. Joseph Shatzmiller has studied in depth an unusual court record from fourteenth‐century Marseilles.³³ There, a Jewish moneylender named Bondavid was accused of attempting to collect a debt twice and chose to defend his reputation in court.

During the protracted deliberations, Bondavid brought on his behalf a set of Christian witnesses, who testified to his exceptional character and generosity. Human relations are always reciprocal. The testimony offered by the Christian witnesses attests to Bondavid’s warmth and generosity toward Christians in need. In return, the Christian witnesses to his largesse took the trouble to make court appearances and to praise Bondavid’s character lavishly.

Daniel Jütte’s Interfaith Encounters between Jews and Christians in the Early Modern Period and Beyond: Toward a Framework:

For instance, there is the well‐known case of the humanist and Hebraist Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522), who became the target of a campaign spearheaded by the Dominicans, at least in part because of his close relationships with Jewish scholars.²²

Another example is the famous eighteenth‐century court Jew Joseph Süß Oppenheimer (“Jud Süß”), whose surviving letters to the Duke of Württemberg reveal a degree of intimacy that can be called friendship. Indeed, Oppenheimer even used the second‐person address “Du” in those letters—an extremely rare privilege reserved mainly for fellow sovereigns and immediate family members.²³

One can, of course, object that these cases were exceptional because they involved two unrepresentative protagonists, a scholar and a court Jew. To counter this argument, it is necessary to examine the dimension of everyday life. This does not imply an irenic concept of daily life—indeed, prejudice and hatred were a common feature of premodern social life in all strata of society.

On the other hand, recent studies on hatred as a social institution in premodern Europe show that except in times of crisis, everyday Jewish–Christian relations were quite the opposite of what one might expect. Daniel Lord Smail has convincingly shown that in late medieval Marseilles, “Jew–Christian confrontations were relatively infrequent.”

By contrast, cases of “intracommunity confrontations among Jews” were far more frequent, given the small size of the Jewish community.²⁴ In light of this, consigning minorities such as Jews to an “otherly status” in premodern society is debatable.²⁵

Katherine Aron-Beller’s ‘Sodomy, Homosociality and Friendship among Jewish and Christian Men: The Proceedings Against Lazarro de Norsa (Modena, 1670)’, page 128:

It is difficult to know but there is a suggestion of some sort of kinship being established—a solidarity, a pattern of giving and receiving favors—that demanded that the Jewish tailor be protected. Francesco di Rossi testified that the Jew was “well‐liked by Christians in Modena”: “The Jew is held as a good person. I am able to swear that I have never heard disconcerting words from his mouth.”⁷¹

Katherine Aron‐Beller’s ‘Christians in Jewish Houses: The Testimony of the Inquisition in the Duchy of Modena in the 17th Century’:

When the nineteen‐year‐old Giuseppe Melli was prosecuted by the inquisitors in 1623 for holding a double wedding of poor Jews in his father Emilio’s house in Finale Emilia in 1620, he admitted to allowing Christians to take part in the singing and dancing.¹⁷ The inquisitorial vicar Don Baldassarre Passerini interrogated over twenty Christians, who were reprimanded for socializing and dancing with Jewish women.¹⁸

When Giuseppe was asked whether it was normal practice for Christians and Jews of the town to mingle together, he replied in the affirmative.¹⁹ When he listed some of the Christians who participated, the inquisitorial vicar Giovanni Vincenzo Reghezza was shocked that his list included some of the most prominent local Christian noblemen.²⁰

In fact, certain Christian witnesses testified that the whole of the town had come, many out of curiosity so that they might enter the home of a prominent Jew.²¹ Others noted that they had attended because the Jews were their friends.²²

[…]

In 1680, the situation was even more scandalous when it appeared that fraternization between Jews and Christians included members of the clergy. The inquisitorial vicar in Finale Emilia, Fra Girolamo Moretti, was denounced to the Holy Office by Father Provincial of the Conventual Franciscans of Bologna, for participating in social gatherings with Jews and even for eating unleavened bread during the Jewish festival of Passover.²⁸

One Jewish witness, Elia Benedetto Castelfranco, was able to confirm that the vicar had sat with him a few years earlier in his sukkah: the temporary abode (booth) which Jews build as an attachment to their home during the festival of Tabernacles.²⁹ These gatherings of Christians in the homes of Jews seem to have nurtured knowledge of Jewish practices and also personal friendships and genuine trust.

(Emphasis added in all cases.)

The enmity between many premodern Christians and Judaists cannot be deduced as some sort of natural and inevitable byproduct of Christian teaching. Rather, it was a political decision: whether it eliminating (potential) economic competition, seizing others’ property or distracting ordinary people from their real problems (typically the upper classes), those who reduce the cause to the Christian justification only put the cart before the horse.

May your presence be a blessing to Jews, as theirs is to you.

2
113
3
6
4
17
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net to c/christianity@hexbear.net

NEW: Pope Leo XIV's top three American cardinals just gave their first joint television interview.

On Sunday night, Norah O’Donnell sat across from Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington, D.C., and Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark for their first joint television interview.

The CBS 60 Minutes segment aired just hours after McElroy delivered a Mass for Peace at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, where he called the Iran war “immoral” and received sustained applause. L

The timing was not accidental. These three men — the only American cardinals actively leading dioceses — have spent the last several weeks watching Pope Leo XIV challenge the Trump administration on war and immigration. And on Sunday, they made clear that the pope’s example has changed their own calculus about speaking out.

Cardinal Tobin put it plainly when O’Donnell asked if the pope should be more vocal: “He’s the pastor of the world. He’s not a pundit.” But the cardinal immediately added that Leo “is going to pronounce on what’s important.” That distinction matters.

Leo has not weighed in on every policy skirmish or culture-war provocation. He has focused his authority on two issues where Catholic social teaching leaves no room for ambiguity: the sanctity of human life in wartime and the dignity of immigrants.

On Iran, the cardinals were unequivocal. McElroy declared the war unjust under Catholic teaching, citing the tradition’s strict prerequisites for a legitimate use of force.

“This is a war of choice that we went to,” he told O’Donnell. He then connected the conflict to a broader pattern that should alarm every American: “We’re seeing before us the possibility of war after war after war.”

Cupich has focused on the moral obscenity of war propaganda. McElroy — who served as bishop of San Diego before moving to Washington — has brought border-state credibility to the immigration debate, acknowledging that crossings “got to a point where it was getting out of control” under Biden while insisting that the current policy amounts to an indiscriminate roundup of people who have built lives and raised American children.

Tobin has been the bluntest on immigration enforcement, calling ICE “a lawless organization” back in January.

When O’Donnell pressed him on those words, Tobin stood by every one. “When they have to hide their identities to terrify people, when they can actually violate other guarantees of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, well I think somebody’s got to call that out.”

The interview also revealed the human cost the crackdown has imposed on Catholic parishes.

McElroy disclosed that Spanish-language Mass attendance in the Archdiocese of Washington dropped 30 percent from the year before. The pastor of the church where CBS conducted the interview asked that the parish’s name and location not be shared — a measure of just how deeply fear has penetrated communities that once gathered freely for worship.

5
3
Urbi et Orbi 2026 (www.youtube.com)
6
9
7
61
8
52
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by plinky@hexbear.net to c/christianity@hexbear.net

The key to #holythursday is #sabotage

linky

9
16

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Custody of the Holy Land have released a joint statement stating that, on the morning of Palm Sunday, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, together with the Custos of the Holy Land, Fr. Francesco Ielpo, OFM, the official Guardian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were prevented from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as they made their way to celebrate the Palm Sunday Mass.

Released on Sunday, the statement said both Church leaders were stopped en route by Israeli police, "while proceeding privately and without any characteristics of a procession or ceremonial act" and were forced to turn back.

"For the first time in centuries, the Heads of the Church were prevented from celebrating the Palm Sunday Mass at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre," the statement noted.

It described the event as "a grave precedent" and disregarding "the sensibilities of billions of people around the world who, during this week, look to Jerusalem."

10
16

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/35919

Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, has commented on US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth invoking God and reading scripture during his press briefings on the US and Israeli war against Iran. During one briefing last week, Hegseth read from Psalm 144. “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for […]


From News From Antiwar.com via This RSS Feed.

11
18
12
3
God, Damn! – Alliance of Baptists (allianceofbaptists.org)

God, Damn!

By Darrell R. Hamilton, II

In the Spring of 2003, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, pastor emeritus of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, preached a Palm Sunday message titled “Confusing God and Government.” The sermon’s premise was drawn from Luke’s articulation of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (19:28-44), and with it Rev. Wright diagnosed the problem that befalls a nation that is blinded by its circumstances, fails to see the things that make for peace, and confuses God and government.

There is a stark difference between God and government. The main points of Rev. Wright’s sermon were: governments lie, governments change, and governments fail.

However, where governments lie, God does not lie. (Number 23:19). Where governments change, God does not change. (Malachi 3:6). And where governments fail, God does not fail.

The government failed in the Spring of 2008, five years after this sermon was preached, when the climax of Rev. Wright’s sermon was clipped without context. In the clip, we hear Rev. Wright’s most damning indictment of the failures of the United States government, saying of its treatment of citizens of African descent,

“The Government gives them the drugs. Builds bigger prisons. Passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God, Bless America’ nah, nah, nah, not God, Bless America, ‘God, Damn America’ . . . for killing innocent people. God, damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God, damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme.” But, in the Spirit of preachers and prophets of the Black Church tradition, Rev. Wright understood that the basis of a critique of our country and its failures is not rooted in hatred for said country. However, like the great sage James Baldwin articulated, critique of one’s nation is not predicated on hate but love and a desire for the country to live up to its professed ideals.

In the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, James Cone, and others, what Jeremiah Wright understood is that you cannot wish evil on a nation that has already brought evil on itself. But what does it mean to “damn” something, and what is its origins in our tradition?

What does Damnation mean?

Etymologically, the word damn originates in French. The “word damner via the Latin ‘damnare,’ a derivative of the noun ‘damnum’ which was meant to convey ‘loss, harm’ (where we get our English word ‘damage’) and was not originally understood as a curse, nor judgment and condemnation.” However, “not until in the 13th Century did the word ‘damn’ come to be understood as judgment and condemnation legally and theologically.”

In one sense, to be damned was to be judged or condemned in light of “damage” that one inflicted on another. And it was the King James Bible (1611) that used the word damn and damnation in its translation of Greek words used to mean judgment, destruction, and condemnation that would be meted out in this life or the next.

This understanding of damnation is what Christians readily have to this day. However, there seems to be some confusion among Christians about how we ought to understand damnation and its relationship to our life of faith.

First, the Church thinks we are called to damn people. The Church historically and presently uses damnation as a weapon to subjugate people and groups to certain traditions and interpretations of faith. Even contemporary, progressive-minded Christians are guilty of damning people, except we don’t say “damn” we say “cancel.” And we not only cancel those who have sinned against us out of our lives, but we cancel them out of our hearts and cast them into outer darkness where “there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

However, Jesus’ lesson to his disciples in life and death is to forgive and not condemn (Matt. 18:21-22; Luke 23:24).

Second, God’s chief condemnation is of powers not people. Paul says to the church in Ephesus, “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood (people), but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places’ ‘ (Eph. 6:12). And the principalities and powers are the nations, policies, systems, and institutions that work and strive against the justice of God (Matt. 25:31-46).

God condemns nations that do not care for the least of these. God casts down principalities and powers seeking to turn people from God and prioritize their own fleshly ends. And where there are people, prophets, priests, or politicians in bed with power, when God casts powers down there are those who will inevitably go down with it.

For the word of God in Isaiah says,

“For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating . . .” (65:17-18a)

Therefore, God will damn every power, policy, system, or institution that stands in the way of creating something new and raze the powers of this world to raise up the Kingdom of God in its place.

Jeremiah was right

Jeremiah was right and some powers need to be damned! It is our duty as disciples of Jesus to call God to damn such things that take God’s name in vain to prevent the Kingdom of God from returning near.

God, damn a fascist movement seeking to destroy lives and our nation’s democracy.

God, damn a corrupt Supreme Court that disgraces its oath to act justly and impartially.

God, damn a movement of fraudulent evangelicalism that calls itself “moral.” That would sweep under the rug its practices of abuse. Use God’s name to wage war against those whom God came to save, and reduce the entire word of God to two issues of gun rights and abortion.

God, damn a hypocritical movement of Christian nationalism that would twist God’s word and seek to confuse God and government.

God, damn a church that stays quiet while damage is being done on God’s people. Fails to protect young girls and young boys by hiding predatory priests rather than casting them out of power, making itself a den for robbers and thieves.

God, damn the church as long as it continues to work against God’s desire for full reclamation of the earth and all creation.

God will stop at nothing to reclaim God’s people, comfort our souls, and transform all created things. And, we rejoice knowing the words in John 3:16-17,

“16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”

And although the powers of the world wish to thwart God’s place in the earth—you can’t keep down what God wants lifted up. You can’t keep from being built what God wants to build up. You can’t keep from being restored and reclaimed what God seeks to restore and reclaim because God never fails!

“for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy and its people as a delight. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it or the cry of distress.”

13
13

(This takes four minutes to read.)

It remains my contention that someone with a good grasp of Judaism, and especially first-century Judaism in particular, can spot details in the Gospels that ordinary gentile readers would be likely to overlook. At least half of the canonic Gospels show signs of Jewish authorship, even if many popular Christian traditions today are alien to Judaism.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament (which I heartily recommend to any serious Christian, by the way) is presently the most up-to-date example of Jewish scholars analysing the New Testament in a manner that is neither polemical nor proselytic. Historically speaking, though, this type of effort goes back to at least the nineteenth century. Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik was a very well educated scholar who proposed some interesting and bold interpretations of the New Testament:

His most popular work, Qol Qore, a commentary on the Synoptic Gospels of Mark and Matthew (his commentary on Luke has not survived), was written over the course of about a decade and, it has been claimed, was the first modern Jewish commentary on the New Testament written by neither a convert to Christianity nor a polemicist against it.¹³

Qol Qore is distinctive also as a commentary, written in Hebrew, by a rabbinic insider who believed that he could prove, by means of classical rabbinic sources, that Judaism and Christianity do not stand in a relationship of mutual contradiction.

[…]

Commenting on the history of idolatry that Maimonides gives in chapter one of his “Laws of Idolatry,” Soloveitchik writes: “Our teacher [Maimonides] brings proof from Jeremiah that[,] even when Jeremiah was rebuking Israel for abandoning G-d and going after other gods of wood and stone, he said that all nations know that G-d alone is one; they only err by elevating those whom G-d himself has elevated.” This is a fairly close and conventional reading of Maimonides’s text.

Less conventionally, however, Soloveitchik repeats it many times, in his commentary on the Gospels, in order to correct Jews who think that Christianity maintains that Jesus is G-d. He designates the Trinity—the concept of one G-d in three Persons—a “great mystery,” thus accepting the doctrine as monotheistic. If even ancient idolaters, as Jeremiah said, knew that G-d was one, then certainly those in antiquity who had been exposed to Israelite monotheism must have known so. Therefore, Soloveitchik concludes, Christianity is not rightly classified as a form of idolatry.

[…]

Among the more vexing dimensions of the Synoptic Gospels is Jesus’s claim to be the Jewish messiah. A dominant theme in Jewish criticism of the Gospels has been that Jesus does not meet the criteria. Maimonides’s “Laws of Kings and their Wars,” where he delineates the criteria for recognizing the messiah, is often cited, and the result has been a widespread belief among Jews that Jesus belongs to the line of false messiahs that commenced before his day and has continued into modern times.²⁴

Rather than classify Jesus as a false or failed messiah—or as the mashiach ben Yosef rather than the mashiach ben DavidSoloveitchik maintains that the essential vocation of the messiah is to teach the fundamental lesson of Judaism, which Maimonides held to be the oneness of G-d.²⁵

Thus, in regard to almost every reference to the messiah in Mark and Matthew, Soloveitchik comments on Jesus’s success in expounding the oneness of G-d to his Jewish compatriots and then, through the ministry of St. Paul, spreading that good news to the gentiles.

In at least one place, Soloveitchik clearly denies that Jesus (Yeshuah) is the messiah and argues that most readers have misconstrued Matthew 24:5 (“For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and they will mislead many”). Commenting on this verse, Soloveitchik writes:

Many will come in my name—there are those who say that Yeshua cautioned them not to be mistaken if a man comes in his name and says that he is the Messiah, that he may not mislead them. However, the meaning of this verse is difficult, for how is it possible that a man would come in the name of Yeshua and make himself out to be the Messiah? Who would believe that Yeshua sent him? And what does he mean by saying, “many will come in my name”? This is the meaning: Yeshua told them that many would come in his name claiming that he [Yeshua] was the Messiah, and by this they will mislead many. Therefore, what he is really saying is, “I am giving you distinct signs [concerning] when the Messiah comes.”

Rather than himself being the messiah, Jesus spreads the belief in divine unity that is the prerequisite to the messiah’s coming. The extent of Jesus’s success in doing so makes him a messianic figure (a spiritual mashiach ben Joseph, perhaps) but not the final messiah who will come to redeem Israel.

[…]

The topic of Jewish conversion to Christianity is notable in Soloveitchik’s project by its absence. His project is to show that Christianity and Judaism have a common cause. As I read it, Soloveitchik’s New Testament commentary is a text for Jews seriously considering Christian claims, however they have been exposed to them, but also for Christians who have been taught to believe that Judaism is an inferior religion and thus that emancipated Jews should become Christians.

This second aim may explain in part why Soloveitchik published his commentary in French, German, and Polish before publishing the Hebrew original. His work essentially argues that the attempt to convert Jews to the “true religion” is ill conceived, not because Christianity is false but because both Christianity and Judaism are true religions.

The rabbinic materials that he brings to bear in his commentary serve each community differently. For the Jew, they enable conception of the New Testament as a part of Torah. For the Christian, they enable a fuller understanding of Christianity. I think that Soloveitchik hoped to convince the Christian reader that, without viewing them through the rabbinic lens, the Gospels cannot be properly understood. For its truth to be discernible, then, Christianity requires of its believers and interpreters a knowledge not only of biblical but also of rabbinic Judaism.

(Emphasis added. I can share more if anybody be interested.)

14
19

I apologize for the flashy, rage-bate title of this post. Here is the point I actually want to make:

Christian Millenarianism is severely understated in the analysis of US foreign policy.

Over the last few years, I've seen a lot of talk and articles about the role of Zionism in US policy, in how we analyze it, and what framework gives us the best explanatory capacity. And it absolutely does have a real and dangerous role in US politics and policy.

But I have seen virtually nothing on the role of fundamentalist, evangelical Christians and their project to use the US state to manufacture biblical prophesy from the book of Revelation. In so far as I have seen it talked about, it's always as an aside and shunted under the Zionist label.

That seems... mistaken? It's its own project, albeit in ally-ship with the Zionist movement.

15
3
My Testimony (lemmy.today)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by whitemonster@lemmy.today to c/christianity@hexbear.net

This essay started as an assignment for my college writing class, but it quickly turned into a passionate recollection of how Jesus has completely altered my life in the last year. If you take the time to read, I’d love to hear how our stories are similar, or even completely different. Peace and love <3

22 January 2026

Meeting the love of your life is like stepping into a world of color after living in greyscale. It'll probably be your parents who first notice, followed by your close friends and bosses; the brighter tone to your voice, the extra patience at traffic lights, and the unshakable ability to keep going. Acceptable normalcy has been replaced by exceptional devotion. The transition from spiritual necrosis to the surpassing joy of knowing my Savior was anything but quick and easy.

January frost draws itself across unsuspecting grass and discarded dog toys in the yard. The season’s frigid darkness is known for seeping into the very souls of those who do not safeguard against its icy grip. One Sunday morning, though, something will pull you to open YouTube, and sitting in the suggested tab will be a livestream from a church in Austin, Texas. You’ve never been to Texas, or heard of this church, but morbid curiosity means you watch the whole thing. Feeling inspired, you’ll search up churches near you and find one that starts in 30 minutes. You decide to go, even though you haven't stepped into a hallowed place for over a year.

Doc Marten’s laced tightly to your ankles, and a dusty bible clutched to your side, you'll step into the fluorescently lit sanctuary and find a place to sit in the red upholstered pews, despite the nervousness biting at your feet. Organ music fills the room, a hymn that strikes a chord of nostalgia within you. There isn't anything particularly special about the setting or the message, but when you pass out of those doors and into the rest of the sunny afternoon, the countenance of your heart has shifted.

Being a woman on dating apps the week before Valentine's Day in a college town feels like cracking open the door to an abandoned house to search for the least appalling roach to share an evening with. Despite the reality of almost certain disappointment, you’ll match with a curly-haired, brown-eyed boy whose profile reeks of collegiate swagger. “This seems promising,” you'll think to yourself after you hear the footnotes of his life story. You’ll call him again, and he will tell you about the church he’s been attending, and you decide to go, maybe surprise him at the end of the week.

He ghosts you, and it might as well have been spite in the gas tank that took you to the congregation 20 minutes and an entire town away from the place you call home. The intention was to show him what he was missing, win him back, or even just glare at him across the room. Again, you are faced with the doors of a hallowed place, but this time pure adrenaline and the forming pools of anxious sweat almost prevent you from entering it at all. The tension is unmistakably pulling you with the same unyielding force as gravity; obedience becomes compulsory.

Striding into the unknown is now somehow clothed in its own odd sense of familiarity. The meeting place is crowded with new faces, but unlike every other strange room you’ve stepped into since moving to school, they see you, and they all smile. A group of young women beckons you inward. “Hi! I’m Elli, What's your name?” chirruped a tall girl with straight, sandy hair. You introduce yourself in the typical fashion. “What's your major?” “Where are you from?” “Are you going to OSU?” The well-known barrage of questions hangs freshly in the air this time; the tone of legitimate curiosity is almost shocking.

Elli invites you to sit with her in the sanctuary. The small room is darkened, the corners punctuated by LEDs and dark curtains. You stand for worship as the band takes the stage; you've been in this position the majority of the Sundays in your lifetime. In this place, the waves of submission to divinity wash off the strangers nearby with such force that its vastness seems like it could swallow you whole. You’ll be so desperate to sing the words, but the song is mournfully unfamiliar.

When the last prayer is murmured, and the lights come up, you have to reckon with the mordant tears running down your face and quickly wipe them away with a conveniently absorbent sleeve. Incipience bleeds hotly in your chest, the new sense of purpose rupturing into a long-desired personal reality.

The sound of a melodic voice snaps you back to the present. You recognize the woman with the silk headscarf as one of the worship leaders. “Hey, I haven't seen you here before. I’m Maria. What's your name?” The questions poured out of her, with genuine wonder behind each inquiry. She invited you to a Wednesday night gathering with the promise of free dinner and discussion. Before you leave, she puts her contact information in your phone. Her inviting radiance made it easy to make the choice to show up to the mid-week gathering.

Winter drags into March, but even early sunsets and overcast afternoons cannot overshadow the budding purpose within you. The once dusty bible has now been fervently highlighted and underlined, pages bent from quick references, and haphazardly tossed into whatever bag leaves the house with you that day. You’ll find yourself weeping in the kitchen when the lines of Luke convey the suffering of Jesus, and how His great love for you is what kept the Son of God from saving himself, and instead, enduring the very punishment that you deserved.

Two solstices pass, and it's the winter term of your sophomore year. You still have the same job, attend classes at the same community college, and still show up faithfully to church every week. Your life is practically the same, but the illumination of your soul is wholly undeniable. Any personal gain might as well be a loss, relative to the delight of knowing your heavenly father. In between the pain of quitting addictions, losing friends, and being devoured by loneliness, you learned how to live a life worth dying for.

16
60
Leader of Antifa (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/christianity@hexbear.net

17
2

Is it really the body and blood?

18
12

I have heard him be valued by some modern (Christian) Marxists for his unique combination of Mao Zedong Thought, Marxism-Leninism, and liberation theology.

19
4

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/22732

For much of South America’s history, the arrival of a missionary has carried two reputations at once. One is charitable: a figure with medicine, schooling, and a language of human dignity that can be useful in a state that is often absent. The other is coercive: an agent of conversion and acculturation, sometimes entangled with land seizures, forced settlement, and abuses that Indigenous communities still live with. Among the peoples of the Gran Chaco, the story of “contact” is still unfolding, with some groups settled and others choosing isolation. In that setting, the line between accompaniment and intrusion has never been simple. Anthropology, too, has had its double role. At its best it records languages, histories, and ways of seeing that outsiders once dismissed as obstacles to “progress.” At its worst it becomes another instrument for ordering Indigenous people into categories designed by others. The most careful scholars learn to doubt their own categories. They also learn that a field notebook can outlast a sermon. That tension framed the life of Father José (Giuseppe) Zanardini, a Salesian priest and anthropologist who arrived in Paraguay in 1978 and spent decades working among Indigenous communities, especially the Ayoreo in the Chaco. He died on January 19th 2026, aged 83. Zanardini was born in Brescia, Italy, in 1942. He studied engineering in Milan before turning to philosophy and theology. The Salesians chose him for Paraguay, and he chose, in turn, to study anthropology, completing a doctorate in social anthropology in England. He would…This article was originally published on Mongabay


From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.

20
1
21
9

Dear friends, We are going through unimaginably difficult days, with very limited support and resources nearly gone. After God, all we have left is your kindness and compassion. Our lives truly depend on your help, and any contribution—no matter how small—can become a lifeline and restore hope where there is none.

A single donation can change our fate. Even sharing this message could reach someone who is able to help. Please don’t leave us alone in this painful time.

From the bottom of our hearts, thank you to everyone who stands with us https://gofund.me/00439328

22
38
submitted 3 months ago by Keld@hexbear.net to c/christianity@hexbear.net
23
10
test post (albany1845.wixsite.com)
24
1

Also please answer the poll if you can

25
47
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by sousmerde_rtrdataire@lemmygrad.ml to c/christianity@hexbear.net
view more: next ›

christianity

5001 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/Christianity

✝️❤️❤️❤️☦️

"Let it be very clear, then, that when the church preaches social justice, equality, and human dignity; when the church defends those who suffer poverty or violence, this is not subversive nor is it Marxism. This is the authentic magisterium of the church.
-Óscar Romero


RULES :

1. Be Respectful
-This applies to everyone and all you do, but to clarify while atheists etc. are welcome, this is not a place to bash Christianity.

2. No Denominational Infighting
-Try to reframe from inflammatory statements regarding or painting with too large a brush. We are all comrade whether we be Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or so on.

3. No Racism, Misogyny, Homo&Transphobia etc.
-Or using religion to justify bigotry.

4. Follow Hexbear's Code of Conduct
-Obviously


Resources :

Online Bible Translations

Institute for Christian Socialism

List of LGBT-Friendly Churches


If you understandably don't wish to see this comm's posts on your feed this is a reminder that Hexbear has a function to sort by subscribed comms only.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS