Again, you have to look at the specific speaker to understand what they “really mean.”
A number of people on the Religious Right, today, very likely have the attitude you describe.
However, when the term first came into wider use, (1930s-1940s, not 1821), the intention was to demonstrate the solidarity of Christians and Jews who rejected and opposed anti-semitism. People who were educated in that tradition are not using it as a cover for anything.
Speaking as someone who grew up Muslim, it’s a matter of which prophet you consider the last “true” one.
Jewish: Moses was the last true prophet.
Judeo-Christian: Moses, then Jesus. No one after.
Islam: Moses and Jesus are both considered to be true prophets in good standing, so Islam by this naming convention would be Judeo-Christo-Muslim.
(while the above naming convention “makes sense” in a strictly lineal way, that’s not to deny the term nowadays has the political connotations already mentioned).
squidfood:
Not quite. Moses was the BEST prophet, with a uniquely clear vision. But later prophets were certainly valid - Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and a host of others, with Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi being the last. They couldn’t have contradicted Moses, but the prophecies they delivered were true.
D’oh - I did have some concept of that from hazy memory :). My Muslim equivalent of (westernized liberal and ecumenical) Sunday school from 30 years ago taught basically “the Old Testament is true unless the Koran supersedes it - here’s Abraham - let’s talk about the Ten Commandments, that’s good wisdom - Jesus had some good parables too - now let’s get back to the Koran”.
No disrespect intended to any argument here so far, but I think everyone may have jumped right passed the most fundamental issue about this. Basically, I think it’s sort of “much ado about nothing,” because the use of labels like Judeo-Christian, and even The West (or the Western World) are not the kind of authoritatively arrived at, hard concepts that such arguments apply to.
History (which is what this is a part of) isn’t a Science. It isn’t best described as anything other than a Discipline. Historians don’t simply RECORD events, that’s a job for what were once called scribes, in days long gone, and is often a roll that falls to machines now.
What historians do, is to gather the various available records about a time, or an event, or a society, and by applying logic, psychology, physics, and a variety of other sciences and disciplines to those records, try to make useful sense of it all.
A label like Judeo-Christian isn’t like an award, or a judgment. It’s more of a non-rigid recognition that a given group of events, influences, attitudes, and so on, are a recognizable part of a larger interactive relationship of everything, in which the Jewish and Christian past, gives us a useful way to understand what is going on.
I don’t remember them having the idea of rescuing it to put Jews in control though?
Unfortunately, those brave Crusaders killed a good number of Christians and Jews as well as Muslin, guess you could say it was an equal opportunity event?
Moses was the best prophet, which is not to say anything bad of the other prophets.
Perhaps it should be said rather that Moses was the most complete prophet, in that he was given vision that would encompass the whole picture, past present and future, while other prophets may have only been given vision for a specific area of it, and some prophets were given vision that was just for their generation, just for the immediate time at hand.
But no prophet before, or after Moses was given any vision that was not encompassed in what he was already given.
Hence there is no new Prophecy, but there may be new prophets, it is never said that there are not.
Which makes sense, if i tell you i am giving you the whole picture, i can send others after you, but they are only going to be to reinforce or remind of something i already told you, otherwise me telling you this is the whole picture would have been a lie.
It also makes sense if I am going to make you as a people make oath to take the word of wisdom and adopt it as the written law under penalty of death.
I can not ask you to be held to the law if i am going to add to or take away from it at random.
That was my point. The Shagnasty asserted that the evangelicals thought the Jews were the “rightful protectors” of the Holy Land. History–and their own stated motivation–shows that’s not correct: the Crusaders were bent on taking control of the Holy Land from Muslims and keeping said control in the hands of Christians, and the evangelicals couldn’t care less about Jews in Israel other than as a precursor to Christ’s return.
No. It was an event motivated by prejudice, begun with prejudice, and seems to continue with prejudice. The Christians who were killed were either “the wrong kind” of Christian or simply had the audacity to look/dress like the Crusaders’ image of “the evil Muslims”. The Jews were killed because, hey, since when did a pogrom against Jews need an actual reason other than an opportunity to kill Jews?
No fair, you used offhand dark humor, i wasn’t ready :eek:
