Then what would you call the likes of this;
Is it "anti-semiticism"? I know it to be false presentation of the more basic and fundamental facts.
Do you understand the accusation there? It conveys the notion that the Jews stripped out books of scripture (ha! as if they would do that!) from what would equate to idea or concept of 'canon' ---because of Christians, and no other reason.
Of course the real truth is that the religious authorities of Jerusalem did not and had never presented books of Apocrypha as being accepted as Holy Writ.
The written testimony of Josephus establishes that the Jews did not have a loose, undefined collection of writings which they considered as their canon, but rather they had a certain and firm number of writings. Josephus directly addresses that point.
As far as anti-Jewish sentiment ---- that began long ago within Catholicism.
Steps are being taken now to combat that. It is true that it could be said that anti-antisemitism was not always universal within the Christian Church, although I've come across expressions which could be seen as 'anti-Jewish' beginning right about the time those of the Church began to speak ill of Jews somewhat indiscriminately for reason that the seeming mainstream of Jewish religious teaching and subsequent mindset continued to outwardly express rejection of the one known of as "Jesus" was the promised Messiah, and as begotten Son of God was thus God himself also, come to the world in the flesh ---- Immanuel, God with us.
As for the Church of Rome in particular, it most certainly cannot be said that there has never been anti-Jewish sentiment. The first Jewish ghetto was in Rome, created (and later enforced) under guidance & orders of the Church of Rome.
That one individual here spoke briefly of Jews lacking a saving God (that was much how that was phrased, correct?) does not equate with being anti-semiticism, but rather was speaking towards theological understandings and the very basis of faith itself.
As it is written;
11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’[a] 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.
My own view tends towards some amount of generosity (as much as possible whenever possible) to be extended to those of Jewish faith today ---- most particularly and first for those of them who grasp the spirit of the Law and thus recognize (if but through a glass darkly, as Paul wrote of Christians themselves, 1 Corithinians 13) just who the heavenly Creator is.
There could as well be (something of a minority?) among Muslims, who despite the wholesale distortions which Mohammed foisted upon what he had hi-jacked from Judaism & Christianity and re-worded, claiming it to be his own revelation -- some still seem to understand such basics as what Christ spoke towards as being that upon which hangs all the law and all the prophets.
Some get it (at times and places) despite the clouds of oratory and *extra* law gone on about in many, many words by their Immans. Even so --- by philosophy and understanding of principles alone none can be saved. It is simply not enough -- to better than the worst one can be.
But now evangelical types are being categorized by yourself as anti-semitic?
I saw the whole thing. It's awfully thin gruel to now be used as a slathering put-down which could be also characterized as "oh, at least I'm not anti-semitic (like you guys)".
That sort of posturing is as 'helpful' to discussion as the charge of racism hurled at those who dare criticism Obama is.
Some are; some aren't. It's what they believe; it is part of their religious DNA. I expect the here are many here who agree with Bailey Smith and some who do not.
The Council of Jamnia was in a way similar to the Council of Trent. Both were set up by an organized religion in a time of intense crisis to deal with the situation at hand. It is Biblical Studies 101 to understand that the Council of J was in fact designed to understandably re-set the state of Judaism after tremendous upheaval - not just the destruction of the Temple, but of the large numbers of Christian conversations. Indeed, the Council specifically rejected Christian writings as Biblical, as of course at the time many Jews were also believers of Our Lord - seems such a thing today would be absurd, but not so in 90 A.D. Finally, all evidence points to the Septuagint being the largest translation effort in Biblical history (and I’d say even to this day). I doubt they messed up and included Macabees. The Council rejected it, which is their business, but the idea that they were simply “codifying what was in existence” is not true and if it were the council wouldn’t merit a footnote in history.
Back to Trent - of course many of the doctrines in Trent were in direct response to the Protestant growth - for example, not be understated, the inclusion of the “Confiteor” and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar - all emphasized to counter the idea of Faith alone etc.
God bless,