True Dialogue

justinmartyr1


To continue with our subject concerning the basis of true dialogue: Before I continue with Justin and Trypho’s dialogue, I wish to say something about those things that aid and also hinder dialogue taking place between Jewish people and Christians.

Many Jewish and Christian philosophers, theologians and thinkers have said much about how Jewish – Christian relations may be improved by “a dialogue between equals.” For this to take place, mutual respect, appreciation, and love one towards the other needs to be encouraged and it is something to strive towards.

Speaking of being “equals” may sound that it is a given, but reality tells a very different story. The dialogue between Justin and Trypho while it attempts to give the impression that it takes place on a level playing field, it quickly becomes apparent that the dialogue is not between “equals” at all.

While Justin is not unkind, he has a clear intention of convincing Trypho of the superiority of the Christian Gospel and from Justin’s point of view, Judaism has been superseded with Christianity, replacing the Jewish faith.

One must appreciate that this dialogue is set in the second century of the common era and that it is polemical and apologetical in style and Justin without apology seeks to win Trypho to faith in Christ.

The question as to whether this is legitimate is quite another issue, however, in terms of a “true dialogue” is something that is under consideration?

There are certainly elements of a true dialogue present, such as Trypho is not just portrayed as a passive listener, he does challenge Christian assertions and he puts forward Jewish objections to the Christian message.

However, there are false notions on both sides of the arguments and at times unsound theological interpretations presented by Justin based upon his theology concerning Judaism and whether it has an abiding covenant and relationship with God in the light of the advent of Jesus as the Messiah/ Christ.

Triumphalistic and erroneous view that Christianity has a superior view of God and that Judaism is a religion based upon law keeping, while Christianity is based only on faith. These types of stereotypes do little or anything to build trust between Jews and Christians and only serves to undermine any hope of genuine dialogue. There is no place for holding a superior or arrogant attitude if you are hoping to have any meaningful interchange of ideas.

 

Judaism is a religion that is equally about having a living, trusting faith in the living God. He is viewed as righteous, just and shows loving kindness to all who put their trust in him. The observance of the Torah is an integral part of the practice of Judaism, but to simply a false image of Judaism as a religion that “hopes to balance the books,” as it were, by making sure that “the credits outweigh the debts,” is to grossly misrepresent it.

Judaism believes in repentance, seeking divine mercy, forgiveness, and restoration. To say otherwise is to do violence to what Jewish people believe.

The single “big issue” that divides the Jewish faith from the Christian faith, is the “person and work of Jesus!”

What place does Jesus hold in the Jewish and Christian faith?

As has rightly said, Judaism without “Jesus” stands alone, while Christianity without him would not exist at all.

He defines everything that Christians hold sacred and dear. He is designated and declared as “Messiah/ Christ; Redeemer; Lord, God, and Saviour.” He answered,

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ” (the Jewish people — Matthew 15:24 NRSV).

He then said,

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (the Gentiles — John 10:16  NRSV).

maxresdefault (4)

The Bone of Contention

Jewish philosophers, theologians, thinkers, spiritual leaders and apologists with “one voice,” say, “No to Jesus!” He can be the Saviour of the pagan, Gentile world, but please do not say that we Jews need to have anything to do with him.

The Gentile Christians have blamed us for his death [deicide = “killers of God”], persecuted us, maligned us, marginalised us, sought to not only exclude us from God but have also plundered our sacred book, the Hebrew Scriptures, renamed it the “Old Testament,” taken all the blessings contained in our Bible too. You claim our fathers (patriarchs), prophets and kings as your own. In addition, you have also displaced us and call us the “people of the Old Covenant,” while you claim to be the “people of the New Covenant.” You even call yourselves “New Israel” and we are referred to as “Old Israel,” and you tell us that our observance of the Torah is useless and that we are lost and damned if we think that God will accept us by its observance!

What are we to say?

We need to bow our heads in shame if we claim to “love the Jewish Messiah/ Christ,” and have treated his “kith and kin” so badly, for Jesus according to his human nature is Jewish. What are we indeed to say to the Jewish people in the light of this dreadful treatment that has been meted out by the church upon them?

We need to have deep sorrow for what we have done. How can we celebrate our faith, knowing that many of our leaders have been responsible for saying such reprehensible things as a Luther or a John Chrysostom about the Jewish people? The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 in its Canons on the Jews is extremely harsh and condemnatory towards them, restricting their social intercourse and their religious freedom marking them out by making them wear special clothes as a sign to ridicule them and separate them from Christians.

download (8)

 

tumblr_inline_ntmedr6QWA1qktv7n_540

 

tumblr_inline_ntmee3kezB1qktv7n_500


The way forward

The way forward is not with arrogance and pride, but in deep humility that we dare say anything to our Jewish brothers and sisters about Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet there must be a way to share his loving grace? If Jesus own intention was to share the Good News with Israel, then can we remain silent?

6359744575730196232133658755_Jewishchristian-heads

Genuine Dialogue

Further to what has been said, recognising our own failure and that of members of the body of Messiah/ Christ, for true dialogue to work, beginning from this place of weakness, on the basis of complete honesty, with the greatest respect for the Jewish people and Judaism, we must be able to share what is sacred and true to us. This includes the fact that we believe that he is Messiah and Lord not only of the Gentiles but also the Jewish people.

images (11)

Saying, “No more to forced conversions, the use of deceptive methods or anything else that would dishonour the very Jesus that we love and wish to share, we must be able to say, “this is what we believe and this is also to include you!”

Having said all this, the expression “walking or treading on eggshells,” may be apt:

gb-drawing-fouryearssince-k-862x1024-350x415

Part 2 True Dialogue

51jPWdTnCsL._SL_300_

More then simply to relate what Justin says, I will give a critique of his ideas that he has expressed and show that while he may have had noble intentions, what he argues is at times not only theologically erroneous, but also deeply offensive to Jewish people.

CHAP. XVI.—CIRCUMCISION GIVEN AS A SIGN,…

Justin: “And God himself proclaimed by Moses, speaking thus: ‘And circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and no longer stiffen the neck. For the Lord, your God is both Lord of lords, and a great, mighty, and terrible God, who regardeth not persons, and taketh not rewards.’…”

“Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him—God the Almighty and Maker of all things—cursing in your synagogues those that believe in Christ.”

My comments:

This raises the question as to whether the Jewish people can collectively be blamed for the death of Christ alone?

The Judean temple leadership certainly had a part in the death of Jesus, but this cannot be used as a pretext to blame the whole Jewish nation for his death.

The Romans were equally complicit and willingly participated in the punishment and crucifixion of Christ and do anyone blame Italians, Latin or Greek-speaking people for his death? Why not bicycle riders or dog walker, but that is absurd. Well is it not equally absurd to blame Jewish people today for something that happened two millennia ago!

Also, to simply blame the Jews for his death misses the whole point of “why Jesus died?”

He died as the supreme sacrifice for sin and this was part of God’s plan for the  redemption of humankind from the power of sin and death. Did Jesus not say,

“For this reason, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father’ ” (John 10:17-18 NRSV).

This being the case, how can anyone blame the Jewish people for the death of Jesus?

Justin: “For you have not the power to lay hands upon us, on account of those who now have the mastery. But as often as you could, you did so. Wherefore God, by Isaiah, calls to you, saying, ‘Behold how the righteous man perished, and no one regards it. For the righteous man is taken away from before iniquity. His grave shall be in peace, he is taken away from the midst. Draw near hither, ye lawless children, the seed of the adulterers, and children of the whore. Against whom have you sported yourselves, and against whom have you opened the mouth, and against whom have you loosened the tongue?'”

Comment: Why choose these verses from Isaiah, to castigate the Jewish people? Is Justin not using these scriptures out of context to fulfil a vindictive intention to seek to further humiliate the Jewish nation?

There certainly was an issue with some of the Jewish leadership as I have already said, but such generalizations are not helpful, for instead of building bridges of understanding they have the opposite effect of building higher barriers for Jewish people to consider the claims of the Messiah.

CHAP. XXIV.—THE CHRISTIANS’ CIRCUMCISION FAR MORE EXCELLENT.

“Now, sirs,” I said, “it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion.”

Comment: on what basis does Justin question the Abrahamic Covenant? Is he not confusing a covenant of that was established between God and his Chosen people, with a covenant that established universal salvation for all of humanity? Being part of that covenant of circumcision was never intended to include “automatic ” salvation, but it only guaranteed membership of the Jewish people?

Justin: “Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone;(4) that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping the faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. ‘For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;'(5) He exclaims by Isaiah: ‘I said, Behold Me, unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good but after their own sins. It is a people that provoketh Me to my face.’

Comment: Justin’s use of this argument against the continued trust in the covenant of circumcision for salvation is wholly consistent with Pauline theology, however, he fails to mention that Paul did say to those Jews who had come to faith, that they were at perfect liberty to continue to circumcise their male offspring.

There appears to be an attitude of contempt towards anybody who is from a Jewish background and once again Justin is more concerned in winning an argument than gaining a sympathetic listener.

CHAP. XXV.—THE JEWS BOAST IN VAIN THAT THEY ARE SONS OF ABRAHAM.

“Those who justify themselves, and say they are sons of Abraham, shall be desirous even in a small degree to receive the inheritance along with you;(6) as the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Isaiah, cries, speaking thus while he personates them: ‘Return from heaven, and behold from the habitation of Thy holiness and glory. Where is Thy zeal and strength? Where is the multitude of Thy mercy? for Thou hast sustained us, O Lord. For Thou art our Father, because Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel has not recognized us…The city of Thy holiness has become desolate. Zion has become as a wilderness, Jerusalem a curse; the house, our holiness, and the glory which our fathers blessed have been burned with fire; and all the glorious nations(2) have fallen along with it. And in addition to these [misfortunes], O Lord, Thou hast refrained Thyself, and art silent and hast humbled us very much.'”

And Trypho remarked, “What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?”

Comment: Trypho has done well in hitting the nail on the head, by begging the question as on what basis may one hope for entrance into God’s kingdom?

CHAP. XXVI.—NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

And I replied, “I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain…”

Comment: Why does Justin continue to blame the Jewish people for persecuting Christ? Was this really happening when he wrote his dialogue or has he developed a negative narrative about Jews and Judaism that he parrots out without considering the negative effect that this has on his Jewish reader? I as a Messianic Jew find it offensive, particularly as I am concerned to establish the basis for true dialogue.

You may question why in his very next sentence he compares and praised the Gentiles who “have repented of the sins they have committed?” I get the distinct impression that a strong culture of anti-Judaism had already developed in a Gentile dominated church that was at “war” with either a real or imagined Jewish enemy.

As we consider this next section I invite you to think through the issue that I have just highlighted.

“But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: ‘I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.'(4) And again: ‘Lift up a standard s for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken…”

Comment: Again Justin continues to “dispossess” the Jews of their biblical heritage by both spiritualising and appropriating it to the church.

36770-004-18981363

CHAP. XXVII.—WHY GOD TAUGHT THE SAME THINGS BY THE PROPHETS AS BY MOSES.

And Trypho said, “Why do you select and quote whatever you wish from the prophetic writings, but do not refer to those which expressly command the Sabbath to be observed? For Isaiah thus speaks: ‘If thou shalt turn away thy foot from the Sabbaths, so as not to do thy pleasure on the holy day, and shalt call the Sabbaths the holy delights of thy God; if thou shalt not lift thy foot to work, and shalt not speak a word from thine own mouth; then thou shalt trust in the Lord, and He shall cause thee to go up to the good things of the land; and He shall feed thee with the inheritance of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.'”

And I replied, “I have passed them by, my friends, not because such prophecies were contrary to me, but because you have understood, and do understand, that although God commands you by all the prophets to do the same things which He also commanded by Moses, it was on account of the hardness of your hearts, and your ingratitude towards Him, that He continually proclaims them, in order that, even in this way, if you repented, you might please Him,…But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children, in whom is no faith, as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His…”

Comment: Paul does speak of the problem of spiritual blindness that covers human hearts that affects both Jews and Gentiles — for Jewish people, Christ is considered a stumbling block and to Gentiles, the gospel message is considered foolishness but to those who are being saved it is the power and wisdom of God.

CHAP. XXVIII.—TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS OBTAINED BY CHRIST.

And Trypho replied, “We heard you adducing this consideration a little ago, and we have given it attention: for, to tell the truth, it is worthy of attention; and that answer which pleases most—namely, that so it seemed good to Him—does not satisfy me. For this is ever the shift to which those have recourse who are unable to answer the question.”

Then I said, “Since I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, do not delay or hesitate to put faith in me, although I am an uncircumcised man; so short a time is left you in which to become proselytes. If Christ’s coming shall have anticipated you, in vain you will repent, in vain you will weep; for He will not hear you. ‘Break up your fallow ground,’ Jeremiah has cried to the people, ‘and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart.’…And by David, He said, ‘A people whom I have not known, served Me; at the hearing of the of the ear they obey Me.”

A Comment: “So short a time is left you in which to become proselytes.” The concept of gaining proselytes was common in the early centuries of the common era, and both Jews and Christians were both engaged in gaining converts to their respective faiths. It was only in the fourth and fifth century that with an ascendent church that Jews were prohibited from seeking to gain converts from among the Gentiles. This has made the concept of gaining proselytes for Judaism something that is discouraged, though there are Reformed and Liberal rabbis who are willing to do so.

CHAP. CXXXVII–HE EXHORTS THE JEWS TO EMBRACE THE MESSIAH

“Say no evil thing, my brothers, against Him that was crucified, and treat not scornfully the stripes wherewith all may be healed, even as we are healed. For it will be well if, persuaded by the Scriptures, you are circumcised from hard-heartedness: not that circumcision which you have from the tenets that are put into you; for that was given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness, as the Scriptures compel you [to admit]. Assent, therefore, and pour no ridicule on the Son of God; obey not the Pharisaic teachers, and scoff not at the King of Israel, as the rulers of your synagogues teach you to do after your prayers: for if he that touches those who are not pleasing(2) to God, is as one that touches the apple of God’s eye, how much more so is he that touches His beloved! And that this is He, has been sufficiently demonstrated.”

And as they kept silence, I continued: “My friends, I now refer to the Scriptures as the Seventy [LXX] have interpreted them; for when I quoted them formerly as you possess them, I made proof of you [to ascertain] how you were disposed of.(3) For, mentioning the Scripture which says, ‘Woe unto them! for they have devised evil counsel against themselves, saying(4) (as the Seventy have translated, I continued):

‘Let us take away the righteous, for he is distasteful to us;… But you had been busy about some other matter, and seem to have listened to the words without attending to them. But now, since the day is drawing to a close, for the sun is about to set, I shall add one remark to what I have said, and conclude. I have indeed made the very same remark already, but I think it would be right to bestow some consideration on it again.

CHAP. CXLII.—THE JEWS RETURN THANKS AND LEAVE JUSTIN.

Then Trypho, after a little delay, said, “You see that it was not intended that we came to discuss these points. And I confess that I have been particularly pleased with the conference, and I think that these are of quite the same opinion as myself. For we have found more than we expected and more than it was possible to have expected. And if we could do this more frequently, we should be much helped in the searching of the Scriptures themselves. But since,” he said, “you are on the eve of departure and expect daily to set sail, do not hesitate to remember us as friends when you are gone.”

“For my part,” I replied, “if I had remained, I would have wished to do the same thing daily. But now, since I expect, with God’s will and aid, to set sail, I exhort you to give all diligence in this very great struggle for your own salvation, and to be earnest in setting a higher value on the Christ of the Almighty God than on your own teachers.”

After this they left me, wishing me safety in my voyage, and from every misfortune. And I, praying for them, said, “I can wish no better thing for you, sirs, than this, that, recognising in this way that intelligence is given to every man, you may be of the same opinion as ourselves, and believe that Jesus is the Christ of God.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Shalom Radio UK

sponsored by Messianic Teaching Ministry International – MTMI

MTMI

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

d8cf06fdd0caed8d13bc0b4212aaa574

 

Part 1: How True Dialogue Takes Place

ISAIAH 1:18 NKJV: 18 “COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER,” SAYS THE L_RD, “THOUGH YOUR SINS ARE LIKE SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW; THOUGH THEY ARE RED LIKE CRIMSON, THEY SHALL BE AS WOOL.”

s10_b1_michelangelo-e1361233730410

sign-listen 3

dialogue-exdez-istock_1France-jewish-medievel-costumes

SHAKESPEARE - MERCHANT OF VENICE

SHAKESPEARE – MERCHANT OF VENICE Act III. Scene I by John Gilbert, comedy, ‘if you prick us do we not bleed’ speech by Shylock describing the lack of difference in humanity between Jews and Christians. (Photo by Culture Club/Getty Images)

You may wish to LISTEN to Act 3 of The Merchant of Venice: 

True dialogue 

It is sometimes employed in a narrative way in a play and rendered in a theatrical performance such as in The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet or Macbeth. Philosophic ideas may be explored and expressed, taking on an apologetic approach, while at other times it may be used as a didactic teaching technique. Philosophers such as Socraties and Plato made use of dialogue to share their ideas. It can make use of many different philosophic devices such as rhetoric, polemic and the use of irony, sarcasm and pathos.

The Merchant of Venice

SHYLOCK 

“I’ll use it for fish bait. You can’t eat human flesh, but if it feeds nothing else, it’ll feed my revenge. He’s insulted me and cost me half a million ducats. He’s laughed at my losses, made fun of my earnings, humiliated my race, thwarted my deals, turned my friends against me, riled up my enemies—and why? Because I’m a Jew. Doesn’t a Jew have eyes? Doesn’t a Jew have hands, bodily organs, a human shape, five senses, feelings, and passions? Doesn’t a Jew eat the same food, get hurt with the same weapons, get sick with the same diseases, get healed by the same medicine, and warm up in summer and cool off in winter just like a Christian? If you prick us with a pin, don’t we bleed? If you tickle us, don’t we laugh? If you poison us, don’t we die? And if you treat us badly, won’t we try to get revenge? If we’re like you in everything else, we’ll resemble you in that respect. If a Jew offends a Christian, what’s the Christian’s kind and gentle reaction? Revenge. If a Christian offends a Jew, what punishment will he come up with if he follows the Christian example? Of course, the same thing—revenge! I’ll treat you as badly as you Christians taught me to—and you’ll be lucky if I don’t outdo my teachers” (Act 3, Scene 1).”

Politicians often make use of dialogue to share their ideas, such as in the context of a political debate. The Brexit question continues to offer lively interaction between those who voted ‘leave’ and those who voted ‘remain.’ This question promises to give the British people and the European Union members continued cause to air their points of view in lively debate and dialogue for some time.

Dialogue is a spoken or written conversation between two or more people. It is often something that takes place in an informal way with the lively exchange of ideas, while at other times it may take on a more formal approach. This can be in the context of a literary or theatrical form that depicts such an exchange of ideas.

A NOTE TO THE LISTENER: THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM SCRIPT OF THE PODCAST, BUT DOES GIVE THE MAJORITY OF THE TEXT UPON WHICH THE PROGRAMME IS BASED

 

Question_Time_Spec_3297354k

Dialogue is used in forums such as Question Time the long-running BBC programme hosted by the British presenter David Dimbleby.

This is a good example of how dialogue in a public forum works and at times it is more successful than others. The thing can get out of hand with either other panel members not letting the one speaking share their point of view without interruption and sometimes members of the audience have continued to interrupt the speaker and have been told to leave the venue.

For dialogue to work, there are a number of factors that need to come into play, such as mutual respect, freedom of expression and the open interchange of ideas. Censorship, prejudice, and bias militate against true dialogue from happening. There is little or no place for aggression or giving of offense speech such trading insults, typecasting of others with stereotypes or the use of prejudicial language.

In contrast, good humour and curtsy are a vital component of those participating in a dialogue and all participants need to be a good listener, able to let others share their ideas without interruption or causing distractions to the one who is speaking.Body language, the tone of voice and the general composure of those participating will also contribute to the success or failure of an attempt at dialogue. There are clearly different ways to share and exchange ideas, but these may not be called dialogue in the true sense of the meaning.

A Monologue

Hilary Mantel

A monologue is a speech delivered by an individual using various literary devices such as those used in a dialogue with the only difference being that it is a single individual speaking. There may or may not be the opportunity to interact with the speaker during question time at the end of the talk. The famous Rieth Lectures are a good example of an expert on a given field of endeavour delivering the lectures. The prominent author Hilary Mantel of Woolf Hall fame gave a recent series on being awarded The Mann Booker Literary Prize.

_____________________________________________________________

A Diatribe  

A diatribe is a most unpleasant and unfortunate speech delivered by someone who is often mentally unbalanced or consumed with a pathological hatred. Adolf Hitler is the most famous or should I say ‘infamous’ example of an individual who worked himself up into a frenzy. The particular danger of such a oration is that the phenomena of mass hysteria comes into play and this was particularly the case during the Nazi era, when large sections the German people gave leave to their senses and cast aside all moral decency and constraint and participated in the mass murder of the Jews, often following one a The Nazi rallies.

The most terrible Nuremberg Rally is such an example. While Hitler and his cohorts were consumed by hubristic maliciousness in their ‘final solution,’ they couldn’t have succeeded without the mass participation of the German and occupied populations of other European nations, such as the Vichy Government and Marshall Paton and his fellow French compatriots in occupied France.

_______________________________________________________________

“Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

—Hitler’s Speech to the Reichstag, January 30, 1941

________________________________________________________________

Be aware that this clip is an example of  no-hate-speech

“Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and this the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

—Hitler’s Speech to the Reichstag
January 30, 1941

__________________________________________

Confutation/ Disputations 

gb-drawing-fouryearssince-k-862x1024-350x415

DISPUTATIONS

By: Richard GottheilKaufmann Kohler 

In order to have a great spectacle to excite the passions of the ignorant masses, John Capistrano, the Franciscan Jew-baiter, arranged in 1450 a disputation at Rome with a certain Gamaliel called “Synagogæ Romanæ magister,” but otherwise very little known (see Vogelstein and Rieger, “Gesch. der Juden in Rom,” 1895, ii. 14).

Confutation_4

Disputations of a friendly character were held at the court of Ercole d’Este I. at Ferrara by Abraham Farissol with two learned monks, the one a Dominican, the other a Franciscan, the matter of which is produced in Farissol’s “Magen Abraham” and “Wikkuaḥ ha-Dat” (see Grätz, l.c. ix. 45). In Germany it was the Jewish [convert] Victor of Carben who, under the direction of Herrman, the Archbishop of Cologne, and in the presence of many courtiers, ecclesiastics, and knights, held a disputation with some Jews of the Rhine provinces about 1500, accusing them of blasphemy against the Christian religion; the consequence of this disputation was that the Jews were expelled from the lower Rhine district (ib. lx. 70).

An Eighteenth Century Disputation.Quite different in tone and character were the disputations held by the Jews, both Rabbinites and Karaites, with Christians of various denominations in Poland at the close of the sixteenth century. Here the Jews, untrammeled by clerical or state despotism, freely criticized the various religious sects, and it was considered a difficult task for a Christian to convert a Jew (ib. ix. 456; see Isaac b. Abraham Troki).

Occasionally disputations for conversational purposes were arranged at German courts. One is reported to have taken place at the ducal court of Hanover, about 1700, in the presence of the duke, the dowager-duchess, the princes, clergy, and all the distinguished personages of the city, between Rabbi Joseph of Stadthagen and Eliezer Edzard, who had had been the instigator of the disputation. It ended in the complete victory of the rabbi, who not only counter all the arguments of his antagonist from Scripture and the Midrash but under the full approval of the court declined to answer under oath the question as to which religion was the best. He said: “We condemn no creed based upon the belief in the Creator of heaven and earth. We believe what we have been taught; let the Christians adhere to what they have been taught” (Bloch in “Oesterreichische Wochenschrift,” 1902, p. 785).

(Reference: Regarding the disputations between the rabbis and the Frankists before Bishop Dembowski at Kamenetz in 1757, and before the canon Nikulski at Lemberg in 1759, see Frank, Jacob).


justinmartyr1

A Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew

Jesus-between-Peter-and-Paul
INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested that Justin Martyr actually created this ‘so called’ dialogue between himself and a Jew called Trypho, as someone would create a ‘straw man’ that one could pull apart or burn down, a bit like an effigy of Guy Fawkes that is first carefully made and set a blaze to celebrate the foiling of the ‘gun powder plot’ by English Catholics to destroy the Protestant monarch and his parliament. In this case it was the Jew Trypho who was put up as an opponent of ‘Christ the King’ who Justin sought to win to Christ. Trypho’s supposed arguments were then considered, countered and refuted (confuted).

An analysis of the text dispalys a zealousness on the part of Justin and his approach to Trypho is delievered in a polemical style in which Justin earnestly endeavours to “convert” Trypho to Christ.

Trypho & Justin

This encapsulates the core of what Justin hope to achieve as an Evangelist and he unashamedly shared his faith with Jew and Gentile alike.

ndAeceVIFg_1424227446972

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

 1200px-Dialog_Axiata_logo

 

_____________________________________________________________

Confutation/ Disputations   

Confutation_2

DISPUTATIONS

By: Richard GottheilKaufmann Kohler 

In order to have a great spectacle to excite the passions of the ignorant masses, John Capistrano, the Franciscan Jew-baiter, arranged in 1450 a disputation at Rome with a certain Gamaliel called “Synagogæ Romanæ magister,” but otherwise very little known (see Vogelstein and Rieger, “Gesch. der Juden in Rom,” 1895, ii. 14).

Disputations of a friendly character were held at the court of Ercole d’Este I. at Ferrara by Abraham Farissol with two learned monks, the one a Dominican, the other a Franciscan, the matter of which is produced in Farissol’s “Magen Abraham” and “Wikkuaḥ ha-Dat” (see Grätz, l.c. ix. 45). In Germany it was the Jewish [convert] Victor of Carben who, under the direction of Herrman, the Archbishop of Cologne, and in the presence of many courtiers, ecclesiastics, and knights, held a disputation with some Jews of the Rhine provinces about 1500, accusing them of blasphemy against the Christian religion; the consequence of this disputation was that the Jews were expelled from the lower Rhine district (ib. lx. 70).

An Eighteenth Century Disputation.Quite different in tone and character were the disputations held by the Jews, both Rabbinites and Karaites, with Christians of various denominations in Poland at the close of the sixteenth century. Here the Jews, untrammeled by clerical or state despotism, freely criticized the various religious sects, and it was considered a difficult task for a Christian to convert a Jew (ib. ix. 456; see Isaac b. Abraham Troki).

Occasionally disputations for conversational purposes were arranged at German courts. One is reported to have taken place at the ducal court of Hanover, about 1700, in the presence of the duke, the dowager-duchess, the princes, clergy, and all the distinguished personages of the city, between Rabbi Joseph of Stadthagen and Eliezer Edzard, who had had been the instigator of the disputation. It ended in the complete victory of the rabbi, who not only counter all the arguments of his antagonist from Scripture and the Midrash but under the full approval of the court declined to answer under oath the question as to which religion was the best. He said: “We condemn no creed based upon the belief in the Creator of heaven and earth. We believe what we have been taught; let the Christians adhere to what they have been taught” (Bloch in “Oesterreichische Wochenschrift,” 1902, p. 785).

(Reference: Regarding the disputations between the rabbis and the Frankists before Bishop Dembowski at Kamenetz in 1757, and before the canon Nikulski at Lemberg in 1759, see Frank, Jacob).


A Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew

INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested that Justin Martyr actually created this ‘so-called’ dialogue between himself and a Jew called Trypho, as someone would create a ‘straw man’ that one could pull apart or burn down, a bit like an effigy of Guy Fawkes that is first carefully made and set ablaze to celebrate the foiling of the ‘gunpowder plot’ by English Catholics to destroy the Protestant monarch and his parliament. In this case, it was the Jew Trypho who was put up as an opponent of ‘Christ the King’ whom Justin sought to win to Christ. Trypho’s supposed arguments were then considered, countered and refuted (confuted).

An analysis of the text displays a zealousness on the part of Justin and his approach to Trypho is delivered in a polemical style in which Justin earnestly endeavours to “convert” Trypho to Christ.

This encapsulates the core of what Justin hope to achieve as an Evangelist and he unashamedly shared his faith with Jew and Gentile alike.

Though the arguments laid out in the dialogue are lengthy, I will present only a few quotations from Justin’s dialogue with Trypho which will have to suffice and convey a sense of what he endeavoured to communicate. At times it is very direct and hard hitting with the type of language used there is little subtlety in the tone. However, looking beyond what may appear as a harshness, there is a genuine loving concern being expressed by Justin for his ‘friend’ to enable him to see the light.

Justin’s own journey to faith began as a quest for the meaning of life through the work of philosophy. He had been aided by others who pointed him towards God and then he discovered God’s grace in Christ (He came from a pagan background) — [CHAP. I – VII describes that journey].

_________________________

*(1)( conversationdialogue is a colloquy between senators; a high-level serious discussionor it is a conference  between the trial judge and defendant).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Along the journey he meets Trypho in the public square and they fall into a conversation:

Chap. I—INTRODUCTION

Justin: While I was going about one morning in the walks of the Xystus, a certain man, with others in his company, having met me, and said, “Hail, O philosopher!” And immediately after saying this, he turned round and walked along with me; his friends likewise followed him. And I in turn having addressed him, said, “What is there important?”

And he replied, “I was instructed,” says he “by Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, that I ought not to despise or treat with indifference those who array themselves in this dress but to show them all kindness, and to associate with them, as perhaps some advantage would spring from the intercourse either to some such man or to myself. It is good, moreover, for both, if either the one or the other be benefited. On this account, therefore, whenever I see anyone in such costume, I gladly approach him, and now, for the same reason, have I willingly accosted you; and these accompany me, in the expectation of hearing for themselves something profitable from you.”

“But who are you, most excellent man?” So I replied to him in jest.

Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. “Trypho,” says he, “I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, and having escaped from the war lately carried on there I am spending my days in Greece, and chiefly at Corinth.”

“And in what,” said I, “would you be profited by philosophy so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets?”

“Why not?” he replied. “Do not the philosophers turn every discourse on God? and do not question continually arise to them about His unity and providence? Is not this truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate the Deity?”…

CHAP. VIII.—JUSTIN BY HIS COLLOQUY*(1) IS KINDLED WITH LOVE TO CHRIST.*

____________________________________

*(2)–[JUSTIN BY HIS COLLOQUY IS MOTIVATED BY LOVE FOR CHRIST]

Justin writes: “When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour… If then, you have any concern for yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may— since you are not indifferent to the matter—become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated, live a happy life.”

When I had said this, my beloved friends those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, “I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things;…And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.”

CHAP. IX.—THE CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT BELIEVED GROUNDLESS STORIES.

Justin: “I excuse and forgive you, my friend,” I said. “For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak,…I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace…

“CHAP. X.—TRYPHO BLAMES THE CHRISTIANS FOR THIS ALONE—THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW.

And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus:—

“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?”

“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments…”

CHAP. XI.—THE LAW ABROGATED; THE NEW TESTAMENT PROMISED AND GIVEN BY GOD.

Justin: “There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing” (I thus addressed him), “but He who made and disposed of all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same for yourselves. But now—(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God…Isaiah says: ‘Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall is for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in My arm?’…If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety…”

CHAP. XIV.—RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT PLACED IN JEWISH RITES, BUT IN THE CONVERSION OF THE HEART GIVEN IN BAPTISM BY CHRIST.

Justin: “By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life…And because this is what this new Lawgiver demands of you, I shall again refer to the words which have been quoted by me, and to others also which have been passed over. They are related by Isaiah to the following effect: ‘Hearken to me, and your soul shall live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people, a leader, and commander to the nations. Nations which know not Thee shall call on Thee; and peoples who know not Thee shall escape unto Thee, because of Thy God, the Holy One of Israel, for He has glorified Thee. Seek ye God; and when you find Him, call on Him, so long as He may be nigh you. Let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will obtain mercy because He will abundantly pardon your sins. For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are my ways as your ways; but as far removed as the heavens are from the earth, so far is my way removed from your way and your thoughts from my thoughts…And the Lord shall be for a name, and for an everlasting sign, and He shall not fail!’ Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho,” said I, “some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold.”

Due to the length and complexity of the dialogue, in Part 2 I will continue to address issues raised in between Trypho and Justin.

________________________________________________________________

Part 2:  True Dialogue of Equals…

Due to the importance of this subject of Dialogue, the next podcast will continue to explore this theme.

 

MTMI

Messianic Teaching Ministry International – MTMI

____________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.hotrodronisblog.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________