Actually the phrase is as much a sociological or cultural one as it is, in any real sense, doctrinal.  To get the flavor of this read Will Herberg’s Protestant-Catholic-Jew.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:46 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language

 

In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews.

This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or rejection.  It recalls a battle line that brewed below the surface, and then boiled over, in the Petrine-Pauline disputes.  Nonetheless, having represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented that they were "Jews" who believed in "Jesus," I have my doubts that your categorical fiat must be right. 

 

On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah are not Jews.

 

Jim Henderson

Senior Counsel

ACLJ

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to