It's something I unquestioningly accepted for a long time. I think I first heard it used in the expression "judeo-christian morality" which I took as a harmless way of describing the idea we follow morality taught in the Bible.
But I began to notice it was being more widely used as describing a religious movement "judeo-christianity" part…
It's something I unquestioningly accepted for a long time. I think I first heard it used in the expression "judeo-christian morality" which I took as a harmless way of describing the idea we follow morality taught in the Bible.
But I began to notice it was being more widely used as describing a religious movement "judeo-christianity" particularly in the media but also in the Scofield Dispensationalist sects (of which I once was one but no longer am). It made me wonder why we were using the same language as the overtly non-Christian secular media. It's obvious the media has an agenda to subvert Church authority and influence, and aren't our friends. So why are we using their language?
I realized that many Christians (particularly Dispensationalists) view those who follow Judaism as something like "almost-Christians". They only believe the first 2/3rds of the Bible while we believe the whole thing. But that completely ignores the Talmud which was written after the Resurrection. Most Jews view the Talmud equal to the Torah (the OT), many even hold it as even more influential. And the Talmud is a hyper-legalistic book that is completely at odds with Christianity. Among other things, it's the rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law. When you hear a Jewish person having all sorts of little tricks used to evade Mosaic Law prohibitions, that's the Talmud talking.
But as Christians, we believe Christ's death and Resurrection ended the old covenant once and for all. The Law (i.e. the Torah) showed us that no man can meet God's perfect standard thus the only answer is the vicarious atonement of Christ. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God" as Paul wrote. So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.
But most Jews didn't accept Christ and continued to try and earn salvation through the Law. However, the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 (as Christ prophesied) ended the Jewish sacrificial system that was used for atonement. So Judaism went further off the rails with hyper-legalism and loopholes codified in the Talmud. It was a desperate attempt to keep a now obsolete (rendered such by the New Covenant) and impossible (with the Temple destroyed) system functioning, and hence became more and more disconnected from the OT.
So now we have two incompatible beliefs, biblical Christianity and Talmudic Judaism, which had functioned separately for 1900 years suddenly lumped together as "judeo-christianity" and done so mostly by the non-Christian media. Timeline searches show the phrase doesn't seem to have been used before the 1950's. Certainty the great Fathers of the Church never used it, and probably would be appalled at the phrase. But it's a really good way to water down and deemphasize fundamental Christian teaching, particularly the absolute necessity to accept Christ for one's salvation.
As to Scofield, it's very likely he was played or was a willing participant in this whole mess. The man had a very checkered past (abandoned his wife and kids, fraud, even jail) that he never publicly repented from. He routinely misstated his education claiming he had a Divinity Doctorate which was false. He had mysterious financial backers for his study bible that have never been explained. Someone paid him to write it, publish it, and distribute it world-wide. Add to that Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby and was *never* taught by the historic Church in the previous 1800 years of Christendom. Another modern creation just like "judeo-christianity".
If you'd like to know more about Scofield's past read "the Incredible Scofield and His Book" published by Joseph Canfield. It's out of print but copies can be found online. It's meticulously researched and footnoted and leaves no doubt about Scofield's character. It has has some pretty convincing speculation (backed by evidence) on who was paying for the Scofield Bible and why. It ties into this whole topic.
This book, and the Book of Hebrews, are what broke me out of Dispensationalism after thirty years.
Thanks for this thorough and very clear summary and explanation.
Yes to “So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.”.
Which raises huge questions on why the obsession with Israel among so many US Evangelical churches. And look into their funding, and how much they get their members in turn to fundraise for Israel.
The chief backer for the Scofield Bible from my reading was Samuel Untermeyer, who had ties to establishment of the Federal Reserve and other initiatives. Combined these institutions served to move us away from bedrock Christianity, and away from our independence as a nation.
It's something I unquestioningly accepted for a long time. I think I first heard it used in the expression "judeo-christian morality" which I took as a harmless way of describing the idea we follow morality taught in the Bible.
But I began to notice it was being more widely used as describing a religious movement "judeo-christianity" particularly in the media but also in the Scofield Dispensationalist sects (of which I once was one but no longer am). It made me wonder why we were using the same language as the overtly non-Christian secular media. It's obvious the media has an agenda to subvert Church authority and influence, and aren't our friends. So why are we using their language?
I realized that many Christians (particularly Dispensationalists) view those who follow Judaism as something like "almost-Christians". They only believe the first 2/3rds of the Bible while we believe the whole thing. But that completely ignores the Talmud which was written after the Resurrection. Most Jews view the Talmud equal to the Torah (the OT), many even hold it as even more influential. And the Talmud is a hyper-legalistic book that is completely at odds with Christianity. Among other things, it's the rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law. When you hear a Jewish person having all sorts of little tricks used to evade Mosaic Law prohibitions, that's the Talmud talking.
But as Christians, we believe Christ's death and Resurrection ended the old covenant once and for all. The Law (i.e. the Torah) showed us that no man can meet God's perfect standard thus the only answer is the vicarious atonement of Christ. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God" as Paul wrote. So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.
But most Jews didn't accept Christ and continued to try and earn salvation through the Law. However, the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 (as Christ prophesied) ended the Jewish sacrificial system that was used for atonement. So Judaism went further off the rails with hyper-legalism and loopholes codified in the Talmud. It was a desperate attempt to keep a now obsolete (rendered such by the New Covenant) and impossible (with the Temple destroyed) system functioning, and hence became more and more disconnected from the OT.
So now we have two incompatible beliefs, biblical Christianity and Talmudic Judaism, which had functioned separately for 1900 years suddenly lumped together as "judeo-christianity" and done so mostly by the non-Christian media. Timeline searches show the phrase doesn't seem to have been used before the 1950's. Certainty the great Fathers of the Church never used it, and probably would be appalled at the phrase. But it's a really good way to water down and deemphasize fundamental Christian teaching, particularly the absolute necessity to accept Christ for one's salvation.
As to Scofield, it's very likely he was played or was a willing participant in this whole mess. The man had a very checkered past (abandoned his wife and kids, fraud, even jail) that he never publicly repented from. He routinely misstated his education claiming he had a Divinity Doctorate which was false. He had mysterious financial backers for his study bible that have never been explained. Someone paid him to write it, publish it, and distribute it world-wide. Add to that Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby and was *never* taught by the historic Church in the previous 1800 years of Christendom. Another modern creation just like "judeo-christianity".
If you'd like to know more about Scofield's past read "the Incredible Scofield and His Book" published by Joseph Canfield. It's out of print but copies can be found online. It's meticulously researched and footnoted and leaves no doubt about Scofield's character. It has has some pretty convincing speculation (backed by evidence) on who was paying for the Scofield Bible and why. It ties into this whole topic.
This book, and the Book of Hebrews, are what broke me out of Dispensationalism after thirty years.
Edit: typos
Thanks for this thorough and very clear summary and explanation.
Yes to “So the Old Covenant was meant to lead us to Christ, not save us. Christ is the New Covenant, the Old Covenant is finished.”.
Which raises huge questions on why the obsession with Israel among so many US Evangelical churches. And look into their funding, and how much they get their members in turn to fundraise for Israel.
The chief backer for the Scofield Bible from my reading was Samuel Untermeyer, who had ties to establishment of the Federal Reserve and other initiatives. Combined these institutions served to move us away from bedrock Christianity, and away from our independence as a nation.