Doctrine of the Witness

shafique

Here's an interesting concept from the distant past.

The early founding Church fathers came up with an interesting justification for the 'continuing existence' of Jews, now that Christianity had come along. 'Doctrine of the Witness'.

Augustine and the other Church Fathers wrestled with this question of why Judaism continued if it had apparently lost its purpose? Augustine’s answer lay in the “Doctrine of the Witness.” This doctrine suggested that the continuing physical presence of the Jews was desirable because the Jews themselves provided testimony to the truth of Christianity in two ways: First, the Jews possessed Scriptures, thereby proving that Scriptures were no means invented retrospectively by Christians to predict the coming of Jesus…

Secondly, the physical status of the Jews provided testimony to the truth of Christianity. The Jews existed in a subjugated, second-class status as a defeated people…The perpetual servitude of the Jews reminded the world that the Jews are being punished for their rejection of Jesus. Therefore it was desirable that the Jew remain in Christian society. As long as Jews retained their second-class status, they would remind the world of their crime in rejecting Jesus and their validity of Jesus’s teachings…

Although the Jews’ status would always be second-class, the Church Fathers decreed that the Jews must be protected and not eliminated. In this context medieval Christian anti-Semitism provided a protective mechanism against the elimination of the Jews. Or, as Duns Scotus, a thirteenth century Christian theologian, put it, the Jews could be persecuted and virtually eliminated, but some of them would have to be kept alive on a deserted island until the Second Coming.

Prof. Steven Bayme, Understanding Jewish History (pp.120-121):
😮

http://books.google.com/books?id=56QJ9O7MFJ4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=understandine+jewish+history&source=bl&ots=qKHEtqIrjB&sig=DIAxJyBMjpRtbi00JVvON99q-nQ&hl=en&ei=B6_8S_CbMsGZ_Qam08ScBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=doctrine%20of%20the%20witness&f=false

Eh - when was this doctrine changed/abrogated - or is this something that Christians still believe?
(I assume that this is something that is no longer discussed in public and has been now denounced?)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique

eh - there is a revionist argument doing the rounds that Jews fared better under Christian rule in the past than under Islamic rule. This is trying to overturn historical facts - and is an argument proposed by people such as Robert Spencer.

I presume you distance yourself from these (kooky?) ideas and agree with mainstream historians that Jews fared better under Islamic than under Christian rule. But if not, what references/authors do you regard as authoriative on the subject?

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

LoL.

Drinking more of the kool-aid?

Perhaps you missed the part of Danios' 'research' where he concluded that non-Muslims payed far more in taxes than Muslims did?

In any event, some Islamophiles seem to be missing the point. Under Islamic law, non-Muslims are discriminated against under today's standards (or even under the standards of the ancient Persians and other empires).

That Jews were treated better in certain geographic areas, such as the Byzantine Empire, Sicily under Norman rule and most Islamic nations has more to do with historical context. In any event, the letter of Islamic law is discriminatory and where Jewish treatment is highlighted, that is only because Islamic law was temporarily ignored.

shafique

Danios is quite impressive, and yes I have read his analysis and references for Jizya over the ages. Enlightening stuff.

We'll save those refs for another day though.

That Jews were treated better in certain geographic areas, such as the Byzantine Empire, Sicily under Norman rule and most Islamic nations has more to do with historical context. In any event, the letter of Islamic law is discriminatory and where Jewish treatment is highlighted, that is only because Islamic law was temporarily ignored.

Hmm - ok, so you have indeed drunk the Kool-aid too, but haven't fully been converted. 'In any event' the historical evidence is there and we can certainly check out the evidence for what were exceptions and what were the rules, and indeed whether Jews were treated better (overall) under Islamic rule vs under Christian rule.

Which brings us nicely back to Augustine's 'Doctrine of the Witness' - what's your take on this. Has this been rescinded now, or do you believe that is the reason why Jews are still around?

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

No, of course not.

The New Testament is quite clear that the Jews will forever be God's people and that all of Israel will be saved.

The Jews are God's elected people and His grace to them is irrevocable.

As for what St Augustine says, you should provide direct quotes from him to see if you aren't misreading what the author says.

I saw nothing in what your authors says to justify your conclusion that St Augustine would have agreed with later Christian practice.

But hey, this wouldn't be the first time you have misread someone else's work, now is it?

shafique

The Jews are God's elected people and His grace to them is irrevocable.

So, the Crusaders that killed Jews as a penance before setting off for the East, weren't actually following the Bible then.

As for what St Augustine says, you should provide direct quotes from him to see if you aren't misreading what the author says.

I saw nothing in what your authors says to justify your conclusion that St Augustine would have agreed with later Christian practice.

I don't recall saying that Augustin approved/disapproved of later Christian killings of Jews in the name of the Bible. Quite the contrary - I was saying that his doctrine actually is a way of justifying NOT exterminating Jews - they should be kept around as witnesses of the truth of Christianity.

'later Christian practice' seems to go against this 'Doctrine of the Witness'.

I just found this justification for not killing Jews to be quite bizare (to my un-Christian mind) - it wasn't proposed to keep them alive out of Love, but rather as a sign of the truth of Christianity.

Or, as Duns Scotus, a thirteenth century Christian theologian, put it, the Jews could be persecuted and virtually eliminated, but some of them would have to be kept alive on a deserted island until the Second Coming.

So, are you saying that this +logic+ still applies?

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

I just found this justification for not killing Jews to be quite bizare (to my un-Christian mind) - it wasn't proposed to keep them alive out of Love, but rather as a sign of the truth of Christianity.

Actually, it reminds me of what Islam teaches for why Jews are allowed to be kept around.

So, the Crusaders that killed Jews as a penance before setting off for the East, weren't actually following the Bible then.

Hmm, on the other hand, it could be argued that Muslims were following the Koran when Antioch was taken by Baybars (without any resistance) and his army subsequently shut the gates behind themselves and slaughtered every last man, woman and child in the city.

Of course, I don't have to dig out historical atrocities several centuries after the founding of Islam to find Muslims slaughtering disbelievers, now do I?

The Koran actually says:

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

9:123

O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.

What we see are typical examples of when following the Koran goes horribly wrong. Unfortunately, slaughter in the name of Allah and his prophet continues to this day.

shafique

Actually, it reminds me of what Islam teaches for why Jews are allowed to be kept around.

Ahh - perhaps that's it - you are confusing your Bible camp classes on Church history with the 'lessons' on Islam!

Anyway, let's come back to Augustine's doctrine.

So, the Crusaders that killed Jews as a penance before setting off for the East, weren't actually following the Bible then.

Hmm, on the other hand, ...

I'd have settled for a 'no, they weren't following the Bible' - but hey, I was wondering how you'd work 'the Mooslims are worse' into your reply. You didn't disappoint. 😉

So, does the logic of keeping the Jews around to prove the truth of Christianity still apply today? (Clue - the answer isn't in the Quran)

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

I can understand from your culture and conditioning that you would see the act of forgiving your tormentors as a sign of being a 'sissy'.

I don't blame you, I just see this as one of the major differences between Islam and Christianity.

Christianity is a religion based on love, compassion and kindness.

And, unlike Islam, Christianity is actually a religion of peace - where Christians are told to not repay evil with evil and that God will take revenge, not Christians.

As for the death of Jesus, Paul says that those in power were guilty of his death, but that Christians should also love our enemies.

Again, these concepts are difficult for a Muslim to grasp since the idea of loving one's enemy is inconceivable for them.

shafique

So, all the Jews that were killed by Christians as acts of penance - did they agree with your cultural view expressed above?

But enough with the loon shuffle - the question was over the 'Doctrine of the Witness'.

Do you still believe in this Doctrine? If not, when did Christians stop believing in this (in general)?

Cheers,
Shafique

event_horizon

The catastrophic contradiction of mis-understanding Jesus words that your people did is when your popes strongly urged them for the brutal massacres against Muslims in Jerusalem and whole levant region under the name of "HOLY WAR". Coming from the popes themselves?! Thats what I call catastrophic contradiction.

Yes, Christians did eventually develop a doctrine of self defense, but I'm not aware of Popes who said to slaughter non-believers.

Perhaps you and shafique are confusing Christianity with Islam, where the Koran says that Muslims who kill non-believers will be rewarded with paradise?

The Islamic version of forgivness appeared when Salahuddin have sent back the crusaders peacfully back to their homes in Europe without harming them.

Salahuddin wasn't all that forgiving when he massacred POWs whom he believed should have fought to the death. If you want to find more examples of Muslims during Salad-din's day killing non-Muslims, then look no further to Baybar's massacre of the inhabitants of Antioch, where his troops were allowed in without a fight and his forces shut the gates behind them and massacred every man, woman, and child in the city.

(Oh, and if you were interested in history, you might want to learn about how standing armies treated cities that resisted them - pillaging a city didn't start with the crusaders, but since they did it, I can understand your desire to blame this on Christian theology - Muslims during the time of the prophet Muhammad and Caliphs were no better)

But who gets a bony finger wagged at them?

shafique

Come again?

Does the new improved Loon version of history whitewash all the killings of Jews in Europe? Surely not.

But what is young loon saying - that the thousands of Jews killed were killed in self defence?

But what about the Doctrine of the Witness? When did the Christians abandon this doctrine (or perhaps the youngster still believes in this?)

Cheers,
Shafique