The misuse of "Judeo-Christian" and the creeping subversion of Christian History

When watching news reports of the burning of Notre Dame I was shocked at how many people misused the term Judeo-Christian in explaining many things surrounding the cathedral. Ben Shapiro is one of the worst offenders of this, and for a person who claims to be so intelligent and have such a vast knowledge of so many political and historical issues, it is impossible to think he doesn't understand that there is NOTHING "Judeo-Christian" about Notre Dame. The proper way to describe Notre Dame would be Christian and more accurately Catholic, PERIOD. I looked into the history of the cathedral and could not find ANY aspect of the cathedral that was linked to Judaism except for 2 interesting events - one being the burning of the Talmud across the street (or river?) from the cathedral during it's building/construction and then the conversion of a fairly prominent Rabbi to Christianity in 2007. That was the extent of any Jewish association with the cathedral. In fact, during the construction all Jews were expelled from France because they had become so subversive that it was effecting most aspects of society.

The term "Judeo-Christian" used to be very rarely used and when it was, it was used correctly and it almost exclusively used to describe the origin of Western law and this is because of the 10 commandments which both Jews and Christians maintain as commandments from God. This was basically the only time the term was used and that is an appropriate use of the term.

When we describe the historic and magnificent accomplishments of the Christian world, such as the magnificent cathedrals built to honor God, there is nothing more disrespectful than to describe these accomplishments as "Judeo-Christian" for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that it negates Christ and the reason for building the monuments because Judiasm/Jews completely reject Christ (even more so than moslems!). This is a classic, 100%, passive-aggressive form of trying to destroy the pride of Christians in their accomplishments which are completely removed from any form of Judaism and I suspect we would see many more monuments had there been less subversiveness by Judaism over the centuries. Second is that it is a way to change the way people view their history, instead of it being separate from Judaism (which ALL Jews will say they are completely separate as Christians are "Goys"/goyim). It is also a form of Jewish supremacy. By placing Judeo in front of Christian/nity places them in a superior position as it could just as easily be called "Christian-Judeo xxxx" and would be more appropriate when talking about a majority Christian (small % Jewish) country and inaccurate when talking about a completely Christian/Catholic accomplishment.

Make no mistake that this is not some mistake by some under-educated people and it would 100% not be tolerated 50+ years ago. They are praying on the low quality of education of the US/world to mislead them to think of Christians and Jews as tied at the hip. It is very funny that this started to happen when Israel gained power, especially with AIPAC and such - which is largely b/c they are "under attack/threat" from the moslem world. So they try to create a bond in the mind that we are joined in every aspect, even in Catholic cathedrals the Jews were part of their magnificence. This is a subversive action and it only benefits one group - a supremacist religion/ethnicity/"race" and it has severe consequences for those it denigrates (Christians).

So when you hear this phrase, keep note of who is saying it and about what they are speaking. After you hear this enough times you will see an undeniable pattern of who uses this and who doesn't. You can also see what these people support, the side of the "isle" on which they stand and the ideas/ideals they are pushing. This could NEVER have happened if they still taught a little bit of religious history or allowed school prayer/study (voluntary) - which we all know who pushed to get rid of this. I also think you would be VERY hard pressed to find an orthodox Jew that agreed with the current use of Judeo-Christian as it seems to be used almost exclusively by Zionists and dual citizenship Israeli/US citizens (who are not orthodox). So don't think this is an attack on Jews, it is 100% not and any claim to be would only show how ridiculous those types of claims are.

This is actually an important topic because if you can change the way people view their history, remove the accomplishments or at least co-opt them in some way, it reduces the pride people feel for honest achievements. This is all part of creating a more easily controlled population because they don't have the proper understanding of history or their culture.

How subversion works/worked. Using the above example if I were to tell someone they were incorrect in using the term Judeo-Christian (and tell them politely, just informing them) they might reply in a nasty way of "you know what I mean" or "stop being so literal" and they would try to make me feel bad for correcting what seemed like an honest mistake. When this happens the person who was snapped at might/will be less likely to do the same in the future, possibly on a much more important subject. So people who respond this way are poisonous/venomous people who you should be wary of. No one who holds truth in high regard should ever get angry when being confronted politely with a correction -they should be thankful.

Looking back at my life I realize that I had many interactions such as this and I can't think of one time where I exhibited the same behavior. This eventually led me to not speak up because it often cause useless and often near violent arguments and during teen/early 20's it was very socially isolating to speak up like this or "fight back".

This is a way that the truth is subverted and is replaced by the BS we see today, like men can become women and women can become men.

The Cathedral was Catholic. It doesn't need a long explanation. Some stuff people were posting online was not correct when they were calling it Judeo-Christian. I have no clue why they were referring to it that way, they are mistaken.

Some people also do not think of Catholics as Christians, they are. I can't understand why anyone would make that determination. I have heard that quite a few times over the years, I have heard people say it to me in person. I did not try to correct them, Christians should not be arguing among themselves, that is not what Jesus would have wanted. But it is happening a lot and it has been happening for many many centuries.

You would do well to read a book by Michael Heiser called 'What Does God Want?'

You might then understand how this expression 'Judeo/Christian is used.

What Does God Want?

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You can't separate Judaism from Christianity. One rises from the other.

You're OP is rather anti-Semite.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You can't separate Judaism from Christianity. One rises from the other.

You're OP is rather anti-Semite.

Would you call the call a sports team that moved from say Baltimore (Colts) to Indianapolis the Baltimore-Indianapolis Colts? Or the Rams, would you call them the Cleveland-LA-St. Louis -LA Rams? Or the Raiders the Oakland - LA - Oakland - Las Vegas Raiders?

What about the Houston Oilers - now the Tennessee Titans? But there is also the Texans who took the place of the Oilers. Should the Texans be called the Oilers/Texans & Titans once removed?

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

First of the bat
Christianity does not maintain the 10 commandments, it was handed to Moses, the mosaic covenant to Israel.
Jesus gave Christians a new covenant doing away with the Mosaic covenant

As for Judeo Christian, it's a label, Christianity comes from Judaism, Judaism is the root
Makes no difference to me what people call it

Christian, Judeo Christian, seems nothing more than a label or way to identify a faith.
If it bothers you then I Am guessing your faith is not in Jesus Himself

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I don't know. Which one of those teams did Jesus bat for?

Not baseball? Now I'm really confused. Is football in the Bible?

For those confused, what Jewish person that you know would be ok with being called a "pre Christian"?

None, not one.

So why is it expected that the other way around is ok?

The first stumbling block for this was American fundamental Protestants. Many of them tried to go ahead and pull the Old Testament into the actual liturgy of their faith. Meaning that since it is in the Bible then it is part of their faith. It was and is and will always be a big mistake.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

So people who respond this way are poisonous/venomous people who you should be wary of. No one who holds truth in high regard should ever get angry when being confronted politely with a correction

Dont be angry - but its all a hodge podge. When you say Christian history do you mean history as recorded from a Christian perspective or secular historian or even Jewish historians?

education of the US/world to mislead them to think of Christians and Jews as tied at the hip

You mean to tell me that Israel isn't the 51st of the USA, or more accurately without US $ the peeps in Israel would be paying over 100% of their earning's to tax.



So it appear that Jews weren't happy to begin with in the use of the term.....

en.wikipedia.org...

In the 1950s, "a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry" in response to the trauma of the Holocaust.[9] American Jews became more confident to be identified as different.


Two notable books addressed the relations between contemporary Judaism and Christianity, Abba Hillel Silver's Where Judaism Differs and Leo Baeck's Judaism and Christianity, both motivated by an impulse to clarify Judaism's distinctiveness "in a world where the term Judeo-Christian had obscured critical differences between the two faiths."[15] Reacting against the blurring of theological distinctions, Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."[16] Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, questioned the theological validity of the Judeo-Christian concept and suggested that it was essentially an invention of American politics, while Jacob Neusner, in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, writes, "The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people."[17]


Law professor Stephen M. Feldman looking at the period before 1950, chiefly in Europe, sees religious conflict as supersessionism:

Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity—that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this belief, reforms and

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes you can if you bother to do some research.

You're OP is rather anti-Semite.

No its not - are you trying to derail it?
What's your motivation?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

So people who respond this way are poisonous/venomous people who you should be wary of. No one who holds truth in high regard should ever get angry when being confronted politely with a correction

Dont be angry - but its all a hodge podge. When you say Christian history do you mean history as recorded from a Christian perspective or secular historian or even Jewish historians?

education of the US/world to mislead them to think of Christians and Jews as tied at the hip

You mean to tell me that Israel isn't the 51st of the USA, or more accurately without US $ the peeps in Israel would be paying over 100% of their earning's to tax.



So it appear that Jews weren't happy to begin with in the use of the term.....

en.wikipedia.org...

In the 1950s, "a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry" in response to the trauma of the Holocaust.[9] American Jews became more confident to be identified as different.


Two notable books addressed the relations between contemporary Judaism and Christianity, Abba Hillel Silver's Where Judaism Differs and Leo Baeck's Judaism and Christianity, both motivated by an impulse to clarify Judaism's distinctiveness "in a world where the term Judeo-Christian had obscured critical differences between the two faiths."[15] Reacting against the blurring of theological distinctions, Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."[16] Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, questioned the theological validity of the Judeo-Christian concept and suggested that it was essentially an invention of American politics, while Jacob Neusner, in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, writes, "The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people."[17]


Law professor Stephen M. Feldman looking at the period before 1950, chiefly in Europe, sees religious conflict as supersessionism:

Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity—that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this belief, reforms and

What I was mainly pointing out is that the term is often used when describing things like Notre Dame and I can't imagine how anyone would describe it as "one of the accomplishments of Judeo-Christian values/heritage". If you can point to ONE jew or aspect of Judaism within Notre Dame, then I/we might be able to consider that statement but I've searched high and low and can find no connection or correlation between the two - so claiming such is an outright lie and whether people want to admit it or not there is a reason this association is made and it isn't out of ignorance for a large number of people.

As for some jews not liking the term, I agree and thought I said that you probably wouldn't find any orthodox jew using that term outside of some very specific issues.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We are discussing that which separates Judaism and Christianity. There are fundamental differences in the faiths. There is a distinction. That's for another time and place. Rest assured they exist.

I am puzzled how this acknowledgement can be anti-semitic?

To be anti-semitic is to hold a prejudice against Jews commonly. Notre Dame is not a synagogue. Never was. It was built by those adhering to a different faith as we've established. The OP is questioning why we use the term "Judeo-Christian" when referring to Notre dame. It makes no sense in this context.

a reply to: rickymouse

I think, possibly, when ppl refer to Catholicism as non Christian, they do so because of the many incidents in history of murder, genocide, and intolerance by the Vatican, and members of the Catholic church.

They weren't "Christian" acts, in their opinion.

These events are a matter of historical fact. I'm not taking a side. Just answering your question.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes you can if you bother to do some research.

You're OP is rather anti-Semite.

No its not - are you trying to derail it?
What's your motivation?

I don't find the OP anti semetic, in the least.

I do, however, find it overly defensive.

The term "Judeo Christian" is quite accurate of mist modern Christians, as they hold beliefs included in the OT, as well as the NT.

I certainly don't understand why OP would find it to be insulting, unless he does feel superior, in some way.

What kind of religion believes they are superior?

Wait.......What?

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
The term "Judeo-Christian" used to be very rarely used and when it was, it was used correctly and it almost exclusively used to describe the origin of Western law and this is because of the 10 commandments which both Jews and Christians maintain as commandments from God. This was basically the only time the term was used and that is an appropriate use of the term.

No it isn't. Western law is based either on Roman Law or English Common Law, not the Ten Commandments.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
The term "Judeo-Christian" used to be very rarely used and when it was, it was used correctly and it almost exclusively used to describe the origin of Western law and this is because of the 10 commandments which both Jews and Christians maintain as commandments from God. This was basically the only time the term was used and that is an appropriate use of the term.

No it isn't. Western law is based either on Roman Law or English Common Law, not the Ten Commandments.

And what do you believe they were based on?

If you want to get to the beginnings, you have to go back to the code of Hammurabi, but to say the Romans or English came up with it, without religious consideration is ridiculously laughable.

originally posted by: Mach2
And what do you believe they were based on?

If you want to get to the beginnings, you have to go back to the code of Hammurabi, but to say the Romans or English came up with it, without religious consideration is ridiculously laughable.

My sentence wasn't very long and I'm not quite sure how you screwed it up, I said Western Law was not based on the 10 Commandments, it isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Mach2
And what do you believe they were based on?

If you want to get to the beginnings, you have to go back to the code of Hammurabi, but to say the Romans or English came up with it, without religious consideration is ridiculously laughable.

My sentence wasn't very long and I'm not quite sure how you screwed it up, I said Western Law was not based on the 10 Commandments, it isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Who said it was?

My contention is with your statement about Roman, or British origins of "western" law.

What new "innovations" did they bring to the table?

originally posted by: Mach2
Who said it was?

Huh? You even read what I quoted? The Original Poster made that claim.
That's who I was replying to before you interjected.

My contention is with your statement about Roman, or British origins of "western" law.

Contend it all you want, it's fact. The United Kingdom and the United States both use English Law and the majority of Europe uses Roman Law.