Re: the original tweet this person is responding to, we have to put to rest this idea that Christianity is originally not a Jewish religion. It's based on word play and ambiguity in the use of referents/names.
Yes, the new testament does distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in a certain technical (theological) sense. The Jews as party to a covenant with God is what's being distinguished here. Again, this is a theological distinction. In that sense, Jew just means being in the right relationship with God as conceived by Jews.
When we talk about Christianity being a "Jewish religion", it refers to the race (incl. its racial history and worldview) from which Christianity emerges. So, if you prefer not to use the term "Jew", then use Israelite. Or Canaanite.
You can't do this without telling the story of history that explains who the Judeans were at the time (late 3rd century or early 2nd century BC - the Hellenistic period), namely, how they came to be where they were, what Greek and Persian influences were on them, and what their psycho-social-political motivations were at this time to craft a national origin myth. The fact is they used the existing material around them - things like the Homeric stories - to do this.
The "Judeo-Christian" vector of religion sprang out from a distinct ethnic group that had basically been in upheaval for its whole existence, at the mercy of stronger empires, and deeply resentful, while simultaneously smitten with the mytho-poetry of those more successful empires.
There was no original "Aryan Christianity". There was a pattern of religious storytelling and behavior that had basically lifted key elements from Grecian tradition and painted it with Jewish tropes. The fact that Constantine would broadcast these religious commitments across the empire is not a signal that it is "Aryan" in a meaningful way. Was it Romanized? Sure. Absolutely. But this does not remove the basic and fundamental problem: while it preserved Roman elements, it is at its core a belief system FOR 1st-century Palestinians.
By focusing everyone on a theological distinction between those who follow or reject Jesus Christ, you distract everyone from the brute fact that this entire religious structure detaches European people from a true Indo-Aryan religion, which was initiatic in nature. We traded a religious system that was exclusivist (and acted as cultural filter for identifying actually great men) for an inclusivist, collectivistic one that became increasingly focused over the centuries on intellectualism and scholasticism (beliefs) rather than on identity, unity, and greatness within that envelope.
People are keen to talk about the subversion of America by the attempt to identify it with an ethos merely, i.e., with a collection of ideas. But this is basically what took place in Christianity, and it found its culmination in Protestantism. This is not a comment damning Protestants and praising Catholics. The point is to look at the development and its culmination in the utter Judaizing of that faith system.
The answer here is not to "reclaim Christianity" as an Aryan "thing." The answer here is not to go back(ward) at all. Our situation calls, like they always do, for something appropriate for the age and the challenge. Christianity is dying or we should hope. But people focus on the wrong things. They see the death, and they worry over atheism, nihilism, the loss of morals, order, and hope. So that makes them cling harder. But this is not how authentic religions live. We must not go backward in time, but rather down to the root: the people, in order for a new religion to form that is up to the task. God has a new image and face in all of the important ages. It is time once again for his face to change and for it not to be that of a Jewish social revolutionary.
CHIRO 1 points 3 months ago
Re: the original tweet this person is responding to, we have to put to rest this idea that Christianity is originally not a Jewish religion. It's based on word play and ambiguity in the use of referents/names.
Yes, the new testament does distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in a certain technical (theological) sense. The Jews as party to a covenant with God is what's being distinguished here. Again, this is a theological distinction. In that sense, Jew just means being in the right relationship with God as conceived by Jews.
When we talk about Christianity being a "Jewish religion", it refers to the race (incl. its racial history and worldview) from which Christianity emerges. So, if you prefer not to use the term "Jew", then use Israelite. Or Canaanite.
You can't do this without telling the story of history that explains who the Judeans were at the time (late 3rd century or early 2nd century BC - the Hellenistic period), namely, how they came to be where they were, what Greek and Persian influences were on them, and what their psycho-social-political motivations were at this time to craft a national origin myth. The fact is they used the existing material around them - things like the Homeric stories - to do this.
The "Judeo-Christian" vector of religion sprang out from a distinct ethnic group that had basically been in upheaval for its whole existence, at the mercy of stronger empires, and deeply resentful, while simultaneously smitten with the mytho-poetry of those more successful empires.
There was no original "Aryan Christianity". There was a pattern of religious storytelling and behavior that had basically lifted key elements from Grecian tradition and painted it with Jewish tropes. The fact that Constantine would broadcast these religious commitments across the empire is not a signal that it is "Aryan" in a meaningful way. Was it Romanized? Sure. Absolutely. But this does not remove the basic and fundamental problem: while it preserved Roman elements, it is at its core a belief system FOR 1st-century Palestinians.
By focusing everyone on a theological distinction between those who follow or reject Jesus Christ, you distract everyone from the brute fact that this entire religious structure detaches European people from a true Indo-Aryan religion, which was initiatic in nature. We traded a religious system that was exclusivist (and acted as cultural filter for identifying actually great men) for an inclusivist, collectivistic one that became increasingly focused over the centuries on intellectualism and scholasticism (beliefs) rather than on identity, unity, and greatness within that envelope.
People are keen to talk about the subversion of America by the attempt to identify it with an ethos merely, i.e., with a collection of ideas. But this is basically what took place in Christianity, and it found its culmination in Protestantism. This is not a comment damning Protestants and praising Catholics. The point is to look at the development and its culmination in the utter Judaizing of that faith system.
The answer here is not to "reclaim Christianity" as an Aryan "thing." The answer here is not to go back(ward) at all. Our situation calls, like they always do, for something appropriate for the age and the challenge. Christianity is dying or we should hope. But people focus on the wrong things. They see the death, and they worry over atheism, nihilism, the loss of morals, order, and hope. So that makes them cling harder. But this is not how authentic religions live. We must not go backward in time, but rather down to the root: the people, in order for a new religion to form that is up to the task. God has a new image and face in all of the important ages. It is time once again for his face to change and for it not to be that of a Jewish social revolutionary.