What News?

Here’s a better way, by Shane Scott:

1.  For every minute you listen to or read a pundit that you agree with, listen to or read a pundit you disagree with. If you watch Fox News, then flip over to MSNBC. If you listen to Sirius Progressive, then also listen to Sirius Patriot. If you read The Daily Kos, then check out Breitbart. Try to understand the arguments the other side makes. “Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude” (1 Peter 3:8, New Living Translation).
2. For every assertion you make on social media, ask a question. This is the precise opposite of how most social media works. But if you decide to ask questions as often as you make assertions – with genuine interest in what those on the other side may say – you might learn something. You might even learn you have more in common than you think, and you will certainly be less quick-tempered. “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19).
3. For every criticism you offer of some outrage on the other side of the political spectrum, make a criticism of some outrage on your own side. Don’t pretend that it is only those you disagree with who are cruel, dishonest, or vulgar. Human depravity being what it is, there is plenty to choose from on all sides. “First take the log out of your own eye” (Matthew 7:5).
4. For every argument you have with someone on the other side, do something kind for someone on the other side. I’m not opposed to genuine debate – in fact, I think a good argument is a great thing for our democracy. But I don’t think it is healthy when our only interaction with those who hold different views is in the context of the clash of ideas. This inevitably dehumanizes those on the other side, reducing them to opponents rather than seeing them as people. Robust debate is great, but loving your neighbor as yourself is better. “Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom” (James 3:13).

From Scot McKnight "Jesus Creed" 1-28-2017

Looking for the Hand of God in 2017

Ecclesiastes 2:24 says, "So I decided there is nothing better than to enjoy food and drink and to find satisfaction in work. Then I realized that these pleasures are from the and of God."

2016 was a difficult year for many people including myself. I am hopeful despite the gloom and doom of the media that 2017 will be a better year than 2016.  Not because of who was elected president or who our nation's leaders presently are.  This is a year to listen and hear from God.

Here is what I hear God speaking this year to his bride the church. "When you let go of what's in your had, I will give you what's in my hand."  Many of us need to let go the past and yes, even let go of 2016.  What we need to embrace this year is what is in God's hand.  But please understand this, God is not going to give you what is in His hand until you let go of what is in your hand.

Some people may have trouble trusting God or what is in God's hand? The real issue is do you trust God enough to let go of what is in your hand first? Holding everything with open hands frees us and allows God the freedom to take us wherever God wants to take us.  Where do you see the hand of God already at work? What are some areas in your life you need to let go of so God can give you what's in His hand?

Decluttering the Soul

I believe 2017 is a year of perfection and completion. Old endings and new beginnings. This is a year for starters to declutter my soul:

1.  Exercise regularly and pray constantly.

2.  Detach from things and cling to Christ.

3.  Crucify the flesh and live for Christ.

4.  To imitate Christ in a life of poverty and humility of spirit.

5.  To hold nothing and to hold God's hand like a child again.

"Maranatha!"

Did the Early Christians Teach the Second Coming would Occur within Jesus Generation?

In other threads, I've been discussing early Christian eschatology with Jon Curry. For those who don't know, Jon recently left Christianity and now maintains that Jesus didn't exist. Our eschatological discussions have primarily been about Matthew 16:28 and 24:34, though he's recently put more emphasis on Paul's eschatology. I want to quote, below, some portions of my most recent response to him, since I think these things might be helpful to some of you. Knowing the background of my discussions with Jon would make some portions of what's below easier to understand, but I think anybody should be able to follow the general thrust. In addition to addressing Matthew 16 and 24 and the eschatology of Paul, I'm addressing Jon's argument that 2 Peter 3 is "making excuses" for a false prophecy that Jesus would return within His generation. My response to Jon consists of more than what I quote below, and those interested can read that other thread for more.

People can ask why God hasn't done something yet even if He didn't set a generational time limit on it. See the examples I cited from the Old Testament in my previous post (Isaiah 5:19, Jeremiah 17:15, Ezekiel 12:22). Similarly, there are references in ancient extra-Biblical Jewish literature to people objecting to the lack of fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, regardless of whether the prophecies had any time limit on them (Michael Green, 2 Peter & Jude [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987], pp. 139, 148). Jews had believed for centuries that the day of the Lord was at hand without setting generational or other dates (Joel 2:1, Obadiah 15, Habakkuk 2:3), and Psalm 90:4 had been cited in this context by Jews before Peter cited it (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability Of The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1987], p. 34). No generational time limit is mentioned in 2 Peter 3, and a promise without a generational limit makes more sense of 2 Peter 3:9....

If Jesus had said that His second coming would occur in His generation, then why would the scoffers Peter refers to not cite that promise of Jesus, but instead object to the slowness of a promise that could still be fulfilled in the future (2 Peter 3:9)? There's a difference between the slowness of a fulfillment that could still happen and the failure of a promise that can't be fulfilled as a result of the time limit having already passed. The situation addressed in 2 Peter 3 is the former, not the latter. We should ask, then, why scoffers would object to the delaying of the day of the Lord, much as people did in Old Testament times, rather than citing something more explicit, like a promise by Jesus that His second coming would occur before the end of His generation. They probably didn't cite such a promise because there wasn't one.

You still haven't given any examples of the earliest Christians responding to a false prophecy made by Jesus, with the sort of shift in belief and counterarguments we would expect to accompany such a false prophecy. Christians living after Jesus' generation continued to view Christ's return as imminent and continued to cite the comments of Jesus about not knowing the day or hour, as if they applied beyond the lifetime of Jesus' generation. Documents like Aristides' Apology and Justin Martyr's Apologies and Dialogue With Trypho address non-Christians and discuss many objections to Christianity, but they don't address any alleged false prophecy of Jesus, even when the second coming is discussed. Some of the early sources who comment on eschatology were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Papias, etc.). Their lives overlapped both the first and the second generations of Christianity. If a shift had occurred in eschatology like the one you're suggesting, with such significant implications, these people should have known about it. As David Aune notes, "The very paucity of references to a supposed delay of the eschaton is indicative of the fact that the delay of the Parousia was largely a nonproblem within early Christianity" (cited in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 873). Christian sources of the second century (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter To The Ephesians, 11; The Epistle of Barnabas, 4; Second Clement, 12; etc.) make the same sort of references to living in the end times, the imminence of Christ's return, etc. that we find in first century sources. Ignatius even refers to Christ's coming, more than a century earlier, as occurring "in the end" (Letter To The Magnesians, 6)....

By Jason Engwer, Sat. Aug.19, 2006

Matthew 16:27 also speaks about the glory of Jesus, which is reflected in the Mount of Transfiguration. So are His identity and His authority, which are relevant to His power to judge and His relationship to the angels....

The Mount of Transfiguration involves more than "seeing Jesus shining". Jesus is visited by Moses and Elijah, an eschatological figure, He's overshadowed by a bright cloud reminiscent of the Shekinah, and He receives Divine sanction. It's a foretaste of the "glory of the Father" referred to in Matthew 16:27. The Father says that the Son is to be heeded, in language reminiscent of Moses' comments about heeding the Messianic prophet to come (Deuteronomy 18:15). The passage doesn't just involve "Jesus shining", but involves a manifestation of His identity, glory, and authority. It is a foretaste of Matthew 16:27....

The phrase "we who are alive" [in 1 Thessalonians 4:15] doesn't reflect an assurance that Paul and all of the living people he was writing to would live until Jesus' return. People in the churches of the first century were dying on a regular basis, just like people outside the church. Paul would have known that some of the people living when he wrote could die, just as he knew that his own death was a possibility once he finished the work he was called to do (Acts 21:13, Philippians 1:22-23, 2 Timothy 4:6). Thus, in 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, Paul can refer to how "we" might be in the body or out of the body through death. The same Paul who refers to "we" who are alive at the time of Jesus' second coming in 1 Thessalonians 4 goes on in the next chapter to refer to how "we" might be alive or dead (1 Thessalonians 5:10). Similarly, Paul refers elsewhere to how "we" will be raised (1 Corinthians 6:14, 2 Corinthians 4:14), which assumes that "we" would first die, in contrast to other passages where "we" are transformed without having died (1 Corinthians 15:51). Apparently, Paul thought it was possible that he and his contemporary Christians would be alive or dead at the time of Jesus' second coming, so he assumes one possibility in some places and the other in other places....

We're discussing Matthew 24:34. I'm appealing to the same phrase ["all these things"] in verse 33. You're appealing to a different phrase in verse 3. My reference to verse 33 is more relevant. But if we look to verse 3, the closest parallel to "all these things" is what the disciples asked about the temple (they use the phrase "these things"), not all of their questions collectively....

Matthew 24:33 tells us that "all these things" happen before Jesus' second coming. The "all these things" indicate that Jesus is at hand. The second coming itself isn't included in the "all these things". If by "apocalyptic events" you're including the second coming itself and the events that follow it, then those events can't be included in the "all these things" of verse 33....

The "all these things" of Matthew 24:34 are general signs, types of events, like the ripening of a fig tree. He's addressing the signs of the end times, not the end time events themselves. Jesus can't be referring to everything discussed earlier in the chapter, since the second coming itself and the events following it were part of what was discussed, yet we know that He wasn't including those events.

What all would be included in the "all these things"? Apparently, what's in view is all of the signs that are comparable to the signs a fig tree gives as it ripens. The ripening suggests that summer is coming, but it doesn't give the specifics of the timing. Similarly, the general birth pangs Jesus referred to earlier (Matthew 24:4-8) are signs of something coming, but only in a general sense, since "that is not yet the end" (verse 6) and "all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs" (verse 8). General signs lead to a brief sequence of specific events, including the second coming itself and the events that follow it (angels gathering people, etc.). Jesus' generation would see the general signs, which would warrant their preparation for Jesus' return. They shouldn't be like the foolish virgins or the unfaithful slaves who were unprepared. Once the general signs are in place, Jesus' return is at hand. It could happen quickly, like a thief coming in the night (Matthew 24:43). What Jesus is conveying in verses 33-34 is the fact that those general signs, like the ripening of a fig tree, will be present as early as that current generation. That generation has to be watchful. They can't assume that the Master will delay His coming....

Shortly after Jesus' comments in Matthew 24:33-34, He addresses the theme of watchfulness and ignorance of the timing of His coming. You've argued that people wouldn't know the timing within Jesus' generation, but that they did know that it would happen within that generation at some point. Against that conclusion, I've cited the language of Acts 1:7, which uses the broad phrase "times or epochs". Notice, also, that a variety of phrases are used in the Synoptic accounts. We see "day" at one point (Matthew 24:42), "hour" at another point (Matthew 24:44), and "day or hour" (Matthew 24:50), "watch" (Luke 12:38), or "time" elsewhere (Mark 13:33). Hours and days wouldn't be the only units of time that would be unknown within a generation. Minutes, weeks, years, decades, etc. would also be unknown. It's likely that Jesus had more than just units of hours and days in mind. The rabbis of ancient Israel generally condemned the setting of dates in general, not just hours and days (Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 590). Jesus probably was agreeing with general Jewish condemnations of setting dates. It would make less sense for Jesus to agree with Jewish opposition to setting hours and days while disagreeing about setting a generational date. And if Christians had an assurance of a second coming within Jesus' generation, it doesn't seem that unpreparedness would be as much of a problem as Jesus goes on to suggest in the remainder of Matthew 24 and in Matthew 25.

Since Jesus wanted people to be in a state of readiness, it wouldn't make sense to expect Him to make explicit reference to His second coming not occurring until a future generation. The most we can expect is the suggestion of the possibility of a longer period of time. Some of the illustrations Jesus goes on to use allow for a return within a short amount of time, but others suggest the possibility of "a long time" (Matthew 25:19) or involve events that would never have something like a generational time limit set on them (Matthew 24:43). The spreading of the kingdom and the spread of the gospel (Matthew 13:24-32, 24:9-14) make more sense as occurring over a longer period of time, even though a shorter time would be possible. Paul refers to how Christians of his day could be "waking or sleeping" (alive or dead) when the second coming happens (1 Thessalonians 5:10). Paul also repeats, in a passage addressing children, the Old Testament concept that children will tend to live lengthy lives on earth if they obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1-3), suggesting that Paul thought it was possible for people who were only in childhood at that time to live to an old age. Those children wouldn't reach an old age until after Jesus' generation had passed. When Paul wrote Ephesians, it had been more than 50 years since Jesus' birth. Clement of Rome, who was at least a contemporary of the apostles and probably was one of their disciples, refers to how the apostles themselves had made preparation for future generations of church leadership (First Clement, 44 - see the translation and notes in Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], pp. 77, 79). The apostles did think that it was possible, and in some cases apparently probable, that Jesus would return in their lifetime. But they also seem to have thought that it was possible that there would be future generations. It doesn't seem that they thought they had any assurance from Jesus that He would return by the end of His generation....

If the gospels are dated much past 70, then, according to your reasoning, the authors were recording statements

Subordinationism and the Trinity

There is no doubt in my mind that the Great Church as a whole (both East and West including the magisterial Protestant Reformers) believed in a hierarchy within the immanent Trinity. “Where the reality exists there must also be the corresponding possibility” (Barth). If in the economic Trinity we see (e.g., in John 14-17) a subordination of the Son to the Father there must also be subordination of the Son to the Father in the immanent Trinity. The monarchy of the Father is clear in the Cappadocian Fathers and has always been taught by the Eastern churches. Moltmann is one contemporary theologian who has tried to soften this hierarchical notion of the Trinity by speculating about different patterns of relationships (including of authority) within the Godhead tied to the stages of the Kingdom of God in history. He emphasizes ways in which the Father is dependent on the Son and the Spirit which is true enough but does nothing to undo what the church fathers meant by hierarchy within the immanent Trinity.

So what did they mean? What did the Cappadocian Fathers and what does the Eastern Church (or churches) mean by the “monarchy of the Father?” And how did they/do they avoid Arianism or Semi-Arianism (heresies that deny the equality of the Son with the Father in terms of divinity)? That’s a very long and complicated story, of course, so I can only answer in a nutshell. By the “monarchy of the Father” the Cappadocian Fathers meant only that the Father is the source or “fount” of divinity within the Godhead; the Son and the Spirit derive their deity from the Father eternally (so there is no question of inequality of being). Their favorite analogy was the sun and its light and heat. There is no imagining the sun without its light and heat and yet it is the source of them. So the Son, who became Jesus Christ in the incarnation, is begotten of the Father from eternity (not in time) (the technical term is generated but it means the same) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Western church added filioque—“and the Son). (I happen to think the filioque addition to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a mistake and it should be undone or revised to say “through the Son” although that has its problems as well.) In brief, then (without going into all the ins and outs of the filioque controversy or even the debates about the generation and procession of the Son and the Spirit), the “monarchy of the Father” in traditional, orthodox doctrine means only that the Father is the eternal, ontological source, fount, origin of the Son and the Spirit. It has nothing to do with authority over which, if imported into the immanent Trinity, would imply a kind of subordinationism.

So why is it important to have a monarchy of the Father within the immanent Trinity? The Cappadocian Fathers argued it is necessary to preserve and protect the distinctiveness of the three hypostases. Some also argue it is necessary to preserve and protect the connection between the economic Trinity (in which there is clearly subordination) and the immanent Trinity.
Now, there are so many issues here that I can’t even begin to discuss them all! But it is absolutely crucial to understand this distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity before diving into the current evangelical controversy over the Trinity.

My suspicion is that many evangelicals who write about the subject are not properly or carefully enough making this distinction. My theses going into this discussion are that 1) There is subordination of the Son and Spirit within the economic Trinity including in terms of authority over, and 2) The subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father within the immanent Trinity has only to do with source, fount, origin of the divinity of the Son and the Spirit which does not automatically include a hierarchy of authority (i.e., obedience to). And I will argue that we cannot claim to know very much about the immanent Trinity, so even that (thesis 2) is arguable so long as we do affirm the immanent Trinity. In sum and in brief, I will argue that it is possible (if not necessary) to believe in the “monarchy of the Father” even within the immanent Trinity without making the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father in terms of authority (i.e., obedience).

By Roger Olson

Eastern Orthodox View of Trinity and Subordinationism

There has been an ongoing debate among Evangelicals over the eternal subordination of the Son and the eternal subordination of women or wives. I have been looking at the early church fathers on this issue but the one group that has some of the best insights on issues like this is the Eastern Orthodox. Here is what the Eastern Orthodox say:

According to the Orthodox view, the Son or Logos is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. This is not a subordination in time, since the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes considered a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, and the Western view is often viewed by the Eastern Church as being close to Modalism.^{[28][page needed][29]} Regarding this point, the Revised Catechism of the Orthodox Faith notes that "This (the Orthodox view) is sometimes misunderstood (by Christians influenced by Western teachings on the Trinity) as "subordinationism," but this term cannot rightly be applied to the Orthodox teaching because it can be said that God the Father depends on the Son to be called "Father..."^{[30] (from Wikipedia)}

The problem in western theology by some Evangelicals is they try to focus on the Divine Trinity being hierarchal rather than relational. Those who speak of the son’s eternal subordination to the Father and therefore women’s subordination for eternity has been a gross reaction to feminism showing little historical awareness to the ancient creeds or tradition of the church

Impotent Rage

Impotent Rage About Trump Directed at Steve Bannon

The witch hunt against Bannon is animated by the impotent rage of the "anyone but Trumpers."

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Jewish Press  

Published: November 15th, 2016

---

Stephen K. Bannon, president-elect Trump's Chief Strategist
Photo Credit: YouTube.com

---

It didn’t take haters of president-elect Trump long to shift their negative energy away from Trump and instead focus it towards an easier target: former Breitbart editor-in-chief and newly named Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon.

Trump won the election, he isn’t going anywhere and people, especially liberal Democrats who have been lulled by eight years of validation, are angry. Also greatly peeved are the traditional establishment conservatives who refused to back the aggressively non-intellectual Donald Trump. It was not only shocking but personally insulting to many of the elites that the “loser” actually won. Much better to throw word-bombs at a liberal for four years than to have to eat crow – picking feathers out of one’s teeth is never fun.

So when the president-elect filled his first two positions and one of the two was an establishment stalwart, Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus as chief of staff, heads swiveled and the keyboards pointed towards the second, the easier target, Bannon.
Bannon has been decisively labeled “an anti-Semite,”  and “alt-right,” and therefore “racist.” The anti-Semite charge has been traced back to claims made by an ex-wife during divorce proceedings.

The most inflammatory thing she claimed he said is he didn’t want to send their girls to a school with “too many Jews.” But they did send their girls there. Bannon denies the charge. That’s it for evidence of anti-Semitism.  Really? Words uttered in a custody battle?
Anyone remember the claim that Hillary Clinton referred to one of her husband’s Jewish staffers as a “[expletive verb deleted] Jew [expletive noun deleted]”? Of course it was never proven that she said that – same with Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitic remarks – but it was repeated and rumors about it persisted, yet none ever rose to the level of a disqualifier for public office, let alone for an advisory role.

Since we can’t know the truth about whether Bannon uttered what was attributed to him by his ex-wife in a custody battle, what do people who know or worked with Bannon have to say about whether the man is an anti-Semite?
David Goldman, the economist and author who used to write under the pen name Spengler, wrote from personal experience that he was confident Bannon is not anti-Semitic. Writing on his Facebook wall, Goldman responded to a post on a conservative news site which blasted Bannon for promoting  “anti-Semitism,” “racism” and “white nationalism.”
Goldman did a Google search of the site.

I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports [John] Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views.

Earlier in the day Goldman took the Financial Times to task for the same kind of evidence-free accusation. “I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. I first met him when he approached me at a conference to tell me that he liked my writing, which is unabashedly Zionist,” Goldman posted. Goldman responded to an email query with:”I discussed Israel with him on a couple of occasions and he is a gung-ho pro-Zionist conservative.”
Joel B. Pollak is senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew. He has worked with Bannon for years and in response to the brouhaha wrote a column on Monday, “Stephen K, Bannon, Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel.” Pollak elaborated on his full-throated defense of Bannon in a telephone call late Monday evening. “Steve Bannon is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” Pollak said. “Under Bannon, Breitbart has expanded to open a Jerusalem bureau, and it consistently posts positive stories about Israel.”

So what about the charges of anti-Semitism? Pollak laughed. “I won’t tell you which ones, but during the [Republican] primary I had to repeatedly talk Steve off a ledge when he became irate that one or more of the contenders made comments Steve interpreted as anti-Semitic.” If anything, Pollak explained, “Steve is overly-sensitive to statements by others he thinks are anti-Semitic.”
No one claims Bannon is a pussycat. Several people who spoke out against the anti-Semitism claim willingly described Bannon as “tough” or “difficult” or “as hard-[expletive deleted]as they come,” but no one has come forward with any basis for calling Bannon anti-Semitic.
What about the claims of Bannon promoting Breitbart as a refuge for alt-right views?
Pollak explained that saying Breitbart promotes “alt-right” because Breitbart contains reporting on the alt-right is “like saying CNN promotes Black Lives Matter because CNN reports on the BLM movement.”

Indeed, there are articles about the alt-right on Breitbart. The most expansive one is co-written by the alleged icon of the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulis, “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” In a 5200-plus word article Yiannopoulis and his co-author Allum Bokhari debunk myths while creating a taxonomy of the alt-right movement. Much of the alt-right, the two explain, focuses on community-building and values lifestyles. The “prankstering” or outrageous “memes” appear to be the source of much misunderstanding about the movement, which the two explain is even more hilarious to the alt-righters who practically choke on how those they aggravate “get played.”
But then there are the “1488ers,” who are just a small segment of the movement. Yiannopoulis and Bokhari explain:

1488ers are the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter supporters who call for the deaths of policemen, or feminists who unironically want to #KillAllMen. Of course, the difference is that while the media pretend the latter are either non-existent, or a tiny extremist minority, they consider 1488ers to constitute the whole of the alt-right.

Those looking for Nazis under the bed can rest assured that they do exist. On the other hand, there’s just not very many of them, no-one really likes them, and they’re unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right. Yiannopoulis also said that “he is too pro-Israel” even for non-1488er alt-rightists to include him in their movement. The same is surely true for Breitbart itself, and for Bannon. So the scary bogey-men of the alt-right is a fringe element of a fringe element, about which Breitbart runs articles, just – to quote Pollak – as CNN runs articles about the recent attention-grabbing movement on the left, Black Lives Matter.

Similarly, of the recent anti-Trump protests many involved were just dispirited Hillary fans, while a few called for violent revolution and there was even a sign held by one protester advocating “rape Melania.”  Should all Clinton-voters be condemned? Should Hillary Clinton? The blogger Jeff Dunetz wrote for Breitbart for several years. Although he never met Bannon, Dunetz wrote a column on his own blog on Monday, with a commonsense title: “If Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, Why Can’t I Find Any Anti-Semitism?” Dunetz remarked on a column written by David Horowitz which ran at Breitbart. In that column Horowitz referred to longtime neocon leader Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew” for refusing to support the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump. But Horowitz – a Jew – wrote the column, not Bannon.

It is true that the Horowitz column ran at Breitbart, but that does not make Breitbart or Steve Bannon any more anti-Semitic than the New York Times running a column written by Mahmoud Abbas makes that paper a Holocaust-denier. And just because the Democratic Party endorsed the Black Lives Mater platform does not necessarily make it or its standard bearers anti-Israel or anti-police, although the BLM certainly is the latter and has officially charged Israel with being an Apartheid State and committing genocide.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Continue reading: 1 2 All Pages

About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a contributor to the JewishPress.com. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email: Lori@JewishPressOnline.com