Author Topic: the church's teaching on the jews  (Read 97165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #360 on: April 26, 2011, 01:08:15 AM »
This comment should be taken with a grain of salt to say the least since it comes off as somewhat apologetic of this controversial figure.

“Nikolai Velimirovic's anti-Semitic writings are disputed to be his because they were made while he was held prisoner in Dachau. It's very possible the Nazis forged them as propaganda. "

This man like many others of his time, including most Chetniks in my view, could easily be considered collaborators and can be held in the light of contempt for that reason alone. Many Serbs, myself included, see Velimirovic that way, as a collaborator, his contribution to Orthodoxy aside.

I think that we should not apologize for this at all, nor should we invent semi-plausible scenarios to reconcile it to modernity. What we should do instead, is we should face uncomfortable revealing facts and move on. These facts include the clarity that the men of the past held views we may not hold today, and indeed that we may find repugnant and disgusting. Such men who held these opinions may indeed be classified as saints for whatever reason. This is clear and it does not matter.

We need to define what we want to do about this now, today, not in the past.

In any case, here a  link that describes some of the controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaj_Velimirovi%C4%87#Controversies



Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #361 on: April 26, 2011, 10:17:07 AM »
IPM,

The Orthodox Church rejects Nazism and racism.

Well, it is pretty weird that he wrote his strongest anti-Jewish crackpot rants while he was being tortured by Nazis. This creates the suggestion that he was coerced into making the statements. But then how come he didn't repudiate them after the war? Maybe because they were written on pieces of toilet paper in a concentration camp and were only published like 40 years after the event. But why didn't he repudiate them then?

His most extreme crackpot rant said democracy came from Jews and this was bad. Now how can he feel the way his rant says, and then immigrate to America?

Also, he hid several Jews from the Nazis.

So anyway, it's a problematic case, not just because his rantings were bad, but because their circumstances don't make alot of sense either.

Likewise, yes he was a Nazi collaborator, and that's bad. But he was put in a concentration camp and supposedly tortured before he became a collaborator. So again, it's a weird case.

I think a correct discussion must take into account the weirdness, rather than only looking at his bad rants after he was under Nazi control.

And I think it would be good for some Serbian Church leaders to specify that they disagree with his rants. I'm sure the Serbian Patriarch does, as he went to a commemoration in a synagogue recently. It sounded like it might have been related to commemoration of the Holocaust.

Regards.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 10:30:26 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #362 on: April 26, 2011, 09:30:41 PM »
I am just pointing out that there is controversy, and that not everyone agrees with the statement. To me the statement is a bit too accepting of the negative, I suppose. It makes my skin crawl to be possibly lumped together in a group that is accepting a possible collaborator.

I personally find fascism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry repugnant and sickening, and I find a need to speak out against it at every turn no matter what others are doing or not doing and no matter who they are. I just see the millions that died and suffered and I cannot help reacting.

I also have no idea what really happened at that time nor do I judge anyone for disagreeing with me. Many well meaning people are in support of his status, I suppose.

I will however, continue to be cautious when this issue arises regarding him. I am reluctant to support a positive view; however, I see that the Church knows more than me in this regard and I accept that they may be correct in venerating him. I, however, find that difficult. This is the weird part for me. I feel like I am left to pick and choose what should be obvious, and that I am abandoned by the Church in this matter to some degree.

I agree 100% that a clearer position by the Serbian Church would be better, in particular a clear denunciation of his sickening comments so that bounds are set in what should be read and what should not be read of him. I believe that more knowledge is always better than less and that people should decide on their own.








Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #363 on: April 26, 2011, 10:20:05 PM »
I think I need to read my Psalter and to meditate on why I sound so self-righteous, and self-important.

I was not in the hell of Dachau and by the Grace of God neither were any of my family. I do not know what I would have done if I was there in that situation. It is easy to be righteous in the safety of the suburbs in a liberal and progressive country.

However, given all of that, bad comments are bad comments and guidance is needed to clarify this controversy.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 10:21:13 PM by ipm »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #364 on: April 27, 2011, 12:44:44 PM »
Quote
I am just pointing out that there is controversy, and that not everyone agrees with the statement. To me the statement is a bit too accepting of the negative, I suppose. It makes my skin crawl to be possibly lumped together in a group that is accepting a possible collaborator.
If you find out anything worthwhile about ROCOR's relations with Nazis, get back to me here.

I once asked Bishop Job + if I could still be Orthodox if I disagreed that Tsar Nicholas II was a saint, and he said plainly he thought so. So I believe you can be Orthodox if you disagree that "Nikolai Velimirovic" was a saint. I am not sure why the Serbian Church made him a saint, but I assume one motivation was because he was a big Serbian nationalist.

Based on the questionable writings it appears he had bad views. And it appears he was pressured alot into being part of the Nazi propaganda campaign that in practical terms caused death. But when it came down to it he was anti-Holocaust too, because he protected a Jewish family from it.

So personally I have to have mixed feelings. On one hand he indirectly furthered death after being pressured, but then on the other he directly saved life when he had the chance.

Take for example the case of Bulgaria. It saved the Jews in Bulgaria-proper, and is correctly honored for this. But it didn't try much- if at all- to stop the Holocaust in Bulgarian Thrace. So was Bulgaria really good after all?

Now how about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Polish resistance? Some months after the Ghetto was destroyed the city rose up really strong because they expected they were about be liberated. If they could do that, maybe they were negligent about the Ghetto? Or maybe they tried to help but didn't have enough morale to rise up then?

And how about the Allies who didn't devote much manpower to stopping the Holocaust? And yet the Allies themselves were in danger? How bad were they.

I am not sure there are easy answers to these questions.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:45:55 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #365 on: April 28, 2011, 12:51:30 AM »
There never are easy answers. I guess that is why I think we should move on.

I think we need to take these people in the context of their own time and place. Our moral standards must be quite different since we live in a different time and with a different world view. For example, would any of us condone slavery, or indentured servitude? Likely not, but ithis was an accepted practice in the 100's. How about debtors prisons? These were once prevalent as well. I just find it difficult at times, in particular when it hits home with fascism, that’s all.

I am glad to hear that it’s not 100% incongruent with Orthodoxy to disagree with certain saints being such. I hope there is some room there as you say.

I think the nationalist aspects are likely correct. This is not a good thing at all if you ask me, but it is understandable.

Along those lines, I find the Serbian, Greek, and Russian Churches seem to expound an 'us vs. them' attitude in many ways. I am not sure if this is clergy or tradition-driven per se, but it’s certainly there among many lay people I know. It’s troubling at times. I would like to have things more open and less national in character.

That is one reason why I am looking into the OCA as a possible alternative. I am not sure about this, but they seem to be less nationalistic in church matters. This is at a very arms-length look. I really don't know.


« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 12:52:29 AM by ipm »

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #366 on: April 28, 2011, 11:10:57 AM »
There never are easy answers. I guess that is why I think we should move on.

I think we need to take these people in the context of their own time and place. Our moral standards must be quite different since we live in a different time and with a different world view. For example, would any of us condone slavery, or indentured servitude? Likely not, but ithis was an accepted practice in the 100's. How about debtors prisons? These were once prevalent as well. I just find it difficult at times, in particular when it hits home with fascism, that’s all.

I am glad to hear that it’s not 100% incongruent with Orthodoxy to disagree with certain saints being such. I hope there is some room there as you say.

I think the nationalist aspects are likely correct. This is not a good thing at all if you ask me, but it is understandable.

Along those lines, I find the Serbian, Greek, and Russian Churches seem to expound an 'us vs. them' attitude in many ways. I am not sure if this is clergy or tradition-driven per se, but it’s certainly there among many lay people I know. It’s troubling at times. I would like to have things more open and less national in character.

That is one reason why I am looking into the OCA as a possible alternative. I am not sure about this, but they seem to be less nationalistic in church matters. This is at a very arms-length look. I really don't know.




This may depend on the Parish more than the Jurisdiction. You could go to an OCA Parish with many people of Ukrainian ethnicity. I go to a "Russian" Parish with three Russians and the rest of the people ( admittedly only 40 people total) are Americans.  So it varies.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 11:11:32 AM by Marc1152 »
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #367 on: April 30, 2011, 02:09:54 AM »
This could be very true. I am not sure, but I am thinking about it.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 02:12:38 AM by ipm »

Offline Robb

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #368 on: April 30, 2011, 02:17:04 AM »
All Christan Churches have a nasty history of anti semitism.  No one is immune.  How many post schism RC saints have uttered comments like "God hates the Jews" and so forth.  It's not just something that comes from the Fathers alone, it was, until very recently everywhere.

I understand that we should try to be sympathetic to Jews and their issues, but I don't believe that we should play into the hands of exploiters by trying to erase all saints writings and holy books which contain offensive passages against Jews in them (Or anybody else for that matter).  We just need to learn to look at them from the context of the time they were written in and what was a commonly held Christian beliefs then regarding Jews.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 02:21:28 AM by Robb »
Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert

Offline ipm

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #369 on: April 30, 2011, 02:24:51 AM »
That is why I agree with the guidance comment above.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #370 on: May 03, 2011, 09:12:54 AM »
Ebor,

I believe you about Jesus that He:
Quote
He was also taken to the Temple as a faithful Jew was supposed to dedicate the first born son, circumcised as is in accordance with the Jewish law, kept the Passover as a Jew and more.  As Marc1152 wrote he taught in the synagogues and as is written in the Gospel he read from the Scroll.
Except that:
(1) I don't remember whether Jesus' dedication in the Temple comes from tradition or directly from scripture, so I do have a little doubt about it. But on the other hand, I think there was a tradition among the Jews to dedicate their sons in the Temple, and that even the Old Testament mentions such a practice.

I don't know what you mean by "from tradition"  but there is the command from the Old Testament on the dedication of the firstborn son  which was done because God said to do so in Exodus 13:1

"1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”

So in the Gospel of Luke 2:22 is

"22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

Quote
(2) I'm not absolutely sure He kept the Passover

From the Gospel of Matthew 26:17-18:
 17Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
 18And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

The Gospel of Luke 22:15:
"15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer"
 
Quote
because there were dissident Jews like John the Baptist who acted differently than the conventional ways. John the Baptist for example ate locusts and wild honey I think, so it seems unlikely that John would've had Passover. Also Josephus the historian got education from a lone hermit, who seemed somewhat outside the common religious society.

Jesus was not John and we don't know what else John ate besides the reference to locusts and wild honey.  Are you thinking of a particular part of Josephus' writing?  Would you please explain more about what you are thinking of here? 

Quote
There were also the Essenes and Nazarenes who acted differently than normal for the society. The early Christians could have been Nazarenes or mixed partly with them. It's possible that Jesus was a fish-eating vegetarian as the New Testament never specifies that he celebrated the Passover meal before the Last Supper, nor does it even specifically mention Him eating meat.

There has been a lot of speculation in the past about Essenes and other groups and whether Our Lord was part of them, but that's all it is.  The Gospels also do not specifically say that He did not eat meat when He was on this earth.  This would be an argument from silence. However, the items at a Passover meal have been plainly set out in the Book of Exodus with the unleavened bread, bitter herbs and lamb and Jesus was taken to the temple, circumcised and went to the Temple and to synagogues.  Those are recorded in the Gospels and are what we have to go on. 

May I ask why you seem to think that Jesus did not eat meat or did not follow the laws as set down in the OT?


Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #371 on: May 03, 2011, 03:54:34 PM »
I have wondered about the question of Jesus Christ eating or not eating meat. As far as I know, none of the Fathers make any explicit comment on this, but there seems to be an element of unwritten tradition that holds that He did not eat meat. For instance, in the icons for the Mystical Supper He and the 12 are always represented with a fish on the table, rather than the lamb prescribed by the Law. Yet the Fathers are also explicit that our Lord kept the Law perfectly. My take on this at the moment is that this is one of those highly mysterious traditions that we cannot really explain, but we ought to accept without prying too much into it. It's rather like the tradition surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos, which seems to have been "hidden" from public view for centuries after the event, and yet which the Church believes in firmly and now celebrates in Her public service. A rationalist will typically take this to mean the tradition was fabricated after the event, although that then begs the question of how it came to be universally accepted by the Church, given that everyone was deeply attached to preserving tradition exactly.

An even better example is the requirement that the bread used for the Eucharist be leavened. We know that Christ ate the Paschal meal with the 12 that night, which could only have meant they ate unleavened bread, in accordance with the Law of Moses. And yet unwritten tradition holds firmly that the bread our Lord blessed and gave to His disciples was leavened. Did they eat the unleavened bread first, with Christ then consecrating the leavened bread as His Body? Or was this a mysterious abrogation of the Law, justified by the fact that our Lord was offering Himself as the Lamb? This may also explain why they may not have eaten actual lamb at that meal.

I don't know if these are the right answers, but, as a traditionalist, I think it's important always to give tradition the benefit of the doubt. :)

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #372 on: May 03, 2011, 05:53:14 PM »
I have wondered about the question of Jesus Christ eating or not eating meat. As far as I know, none of the Fathers make any explicit comment on this, but there seems to be an element of unwritten tradition that holds that He did not eat meat. For instance, in the icons for the Mystical Supper He and the 12 are always represented with a fish on the table, rather than the lamb prescribed by the Law. Yet the Fathers are also explicit that our Lord kept the Law perfectly. My take on this at the moment is that this is one of those highly mysterious traditions that we cannot really explain, but we ought to accept without prying too much into it. It's rather like the tradition surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos, which seems to have been "hidden" from public view for centuries after the event, and yet which the Church believes in firmly and now celebrates in Her public service. A rationalist will typically take this to mean the tradition was fabricated after the event, although that then begs the question of how it came to be universally accepted by the Church, given that everyone was deeply attached to preserving tradition exactly.

An even better example is the requirement that the bread used for the Eucharist be leavened. We know that Christ ate the Paschal meal with the 12 that night, which could only have meant they ate unleavened bread, in accordance with the Law of Moses. And yet unwritten tradition holds firmly that the bread our Lord blessed and gave to His disciples was leavened. Did they eat the unleavened bread first, with Christ then consecrating the leavened bread as His Body? Or was this a mysterious abrogation of the Law, justified by the fact that our Lord was offering Himself as the Lamb? This may also explain why they may not have eaten actual lamb at that meal.

I don't know if these are the right answers, but, as a traditionalist, I think it's important always to give tradition the benefit of the doubt. :)

He observed the Passover. Everyone knows you eat brisket (of beef) at Passover.. Duh.
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #373 on: May 03, 2011, 06:35:06 PM »
I have wondered about the question of Jesus Christ eating or not eating meat. As far as I know, none of the Fathers make any explicit comment on this, but there seems to be an element of unwritten tradition that holds that He did not eat meat. For instance, in the icons for the Mystical Supper He and the 12 are always represented with a fish on the table, rather than the lamb prescribed by the Law. Yet the Fathers are also explicit that our Lord kept the Law perfectly. My take on this at the moment is that this is one of those highly mysterious traditions that we cannot really explain, but we ought to accept without prying too much into it. It's rather like the tradition surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos, which seems to have been "hidden" from public view for centuries after the event, and yet which the Church believes in firmly and now celebrates in Her public service. A rationalist will typically take this to mean the tradition was fabricated after the event, although that then begs the question of how it came to be universally accepted by the Church, given that everyone was deeply attached to preserving tradition exactly.

An even better example is the requirement that the bread used for the Eucharist be leavened. We know that Christ ate the Paschal meal with the 12 that night, which could only have meant they ate unleavened bread, in accordance with the Law of Moses. And yet unwritten tradition holds firmly that the bread our Lord blessed and gave to His disciples was leavened. Did they eat the unleavened bread first, with Christ then consecrating the leavened bread as His Body? Or was this a mysterious abrogation of the Law, justified by the fact that our Lord was offering Himself as the Lamb? This may also explain why they may not have eaten actual lamb at that meal.

I don't know if these are the right answers, but, as a traditionalist, I think it's important always to give tradition the benefit of the doubt. :)

He observed the Passover. Everyone knows you eat brisket (of beef) at Passover.. Duh.

Very droll. I'm sure the fish they ate instead was delicious, too.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #374 on: May 04, 2011, 09:17:50 PM »
He observed the Passover. Everyone knows you eat brisket (of beef) at Passover.. Duh.

 :)  Chicken soup with matzo balls is also quite traditional.  ;)

One wonders just *why* some find the idea that Our Lord ate meat to be disagreeable/distasteful/unacceptable?  The common diet of the time and place didn't have meat every day as is more common now, but the dietary laws in the O.T. give some information, for example, and there are other sources of information.

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #375 on: May 04, 2011, 09:36:37 PM »
He observed the Passover. Everyone knows you eat brisket (of beef) at Passover.. Duh.

 :)  Chicken soup with matzo balls is also quite traditional.  ;)

One wonders just *why* some find the idea that Our Lord ate meat to be disagreeable/distasteful/unacceptable?  The common diet of the time and place didn't have meat every day as is more common now, but the dietary laws in the O.T. give some information, for example, and there are other sources of information.



The point is not whether it's distasteful, but whether it's true. And I imagine it's related to our Lord's monastic life. It makes sense that, just as He never married, He also never ate meat. I'm not saying it's true, but I'm saying it makes inherent sense.

If abstaining from meat involved abrogating the Law, it might be good also to remember that St John the Forerunner never ate meat. How would he have kept the Law in that case? Not sure about this one.

Offline Tallitot

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,960
    • USCJ
  • Faith: Jewish(Conservative)
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #376 on: May 04, 2011, 09:38:57 PM »
Did common people eat meat as freq as we do today?
Proverbs 22:7

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,125
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #377 on: May 04, 2011, 10:26:24 PM »
For instance, in the icons for the Mystical Supper He and the 12 are always represented with a fish on the table, rather than the lamb prescribed by the Law.

As you seem to acknowledge later in your post, there was a lamb present and that very lamb was eaten by those in attendance.

As I understand matters, the mystical supper, even if it was a passover meal, could not have included a lamb as the passover lamb was meant to be slaughtered in the temple on friday -- just as our Lord offered the perfect sacrifice the next day.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 10:29:57 PM by akimori makoto »
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #378 on: May 04, 2011, 10:43:03 PM »
I didn't bother going threw 9 pages of comments, that requires time, patience, and energy.

I'd like to point out that on that Friday, the Jews had grouped together into a violent mob shouting for the crucifixion of our Saviour. You will say, well, it was just the Jewish hgemony and 200 lunitics. But that doesn't seem to be the case. After all, Pilate tells Christ: "To ethnos to son, kai i arhieries paradidousin se is eme" that is: Your NATION and the high priests have given you over to me. According to wiktionary:
Quote
nation (plural nations)

    A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.

        The Roma are a nation without a country.

    A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

        The Kurdish people constitute a nation in the Middle East

    (law) (international law) A sovereign state.

        Though legally single nations, many states comprise several distinct cultural or ethnic groups.

So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ. Furthermore, any comments to this that express views to the contrary are by people who would want to sugar coat so to speak, the Jews responsibility. This may come out of fear of not being politically correct, being declared an "anti semite" or simply just "falling out" as it where from a society which is plainly run by the people whose name begins with "J"


Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #379 on: May 05, 2011, 09:16:43 AM »
Did common people eat meat as freq as we do today?

Generally no, if you're using the US and parts of Europe as examples where some people eat it every day or almost so.  It depended on what was available at different times of the year for starters, of course, with no refrigeration or canning.  But there were other ways to preserve some foods. If an animal was producing something useful like milk or wool or eggs, then they generally weren't eaten if things were going fairly well. (No drought or other adverse conditions). Grains are the basis of a lot of foods throughout history and in many parts of the world today there are people eating the same basic pattern of foods that they grow. Meat has been often for a celebration.  There is the passage in Genesis 18 where Abraham serves the three visitors bread, meat (from a calf, tender and not a producer), milk and butter for example and the father of the prodigal son has the "fatted calf" prepared when his son returns.  

Here's a bit of an article http://www.physorg.com/news151078460.html on the diet
and here's an interesting time-line of foods and humans with links to source materials  http://www.foodtimeline.org/



Ebor
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 09:20:13 AM by Ebor »
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #380 on: May 05, 2011, 09:29:20 AM »
So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ.

All persons of Jewish ethnicity or religious belief or just descended from humans who were in Jerusalem and in that mob that day?  Every single one throughout time and place?  People alive now who had nothing to do with any such action? 

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,839
  • Excelsior
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #381 on: May 05, 2011, 09:33:06 AM »
Quote from: Chtets Ioann
So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ. Furthermore, any comments to this that express views to the contrary are by people who would want to sugar coat so to speak, the Jews responsibility. This may come out of fear of not being politically correct, being declared an "anti semite" or simply just "falling out" as it where from a society which is plainly run by the people whose name begins with "J"

Or, you're wrong.  ::)

Why don't we have a sick-to-your-stomach smiley?
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline Tallitot

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,960
    • USCJ
  • Faith: Jewish(Conservative)
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #382 on: May 05, 2011, 09:37:35 AM »
Quote from: Chtets Ioann
So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ. Furthermore, any comments to this that express views to the contrary are by people who would want to sugar coat so to speak, the Jews responsibility. This may come out of fear of not being politically correct, being declared an "anti semite" or simply just "falling out" as it where from a society which is plainly run by the people whose name begins with "J"

Or, you're wrong.  ::)

Why don't we have a sick-to-your-stomach smiley?
how's this
Proverbs 22:7

Offline Jharek Carnelian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #383 on: May 05, 2011, 10:19:20 AM »
Quote
So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ.

All of us here, including myself and yourself, share in the guilt of Christ's death.

Quote
Furthermore, any comments to this that express views to the contrary are by people who would want to sugar coat so to speak, the Jews responsibility. This may come out of fear of not being politically correct, being declared an "anti semite" or simply just "falling out" as it where from a society which is plainly run by the people whose name begins with "J"


The Japanese? The Jamaicans? people from the isle of Jersey? Jordanians. You need to let us know who these secret rulers are!
And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #384 on: May 05, 2011, 10:42:40 AM »

The Japanese? The Jamaicans? people from the isle of Jersey? Jordanians. You need to let us know who these secret rulers are!

 :D excellent!

I vote for the Isle of Jersey.. (just kidding  ;) )
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #385 on: May 05, 2011, 11:05:00 AM »
I didn't bother going threw 9 pages of comments, that requires time, patience, and energy.

I'd like to point out that on that Friday, the Jews had grouped together into a violent mob shouting for the crucifixion of our Saviour. You will say, well, it was just the Jewish hgemony and 200 lunitics. But that doesn't seem to be the case. After all, Pilate tells Christ: "To ethnos to son, kai i arhieries paradidousin se is eme" that is: Your NATION and the high priests have given you over to me. According to wiktionary:
Quote
nation (plural nations)

    A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.

        The Roma are a nation without a country.

    A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

        The Kurdish people constitute a nation in the Middle East

    (law) (international law) A sovereign state.

        Though legally single nations, many states comprise several distinct cultural or ethnic groups.

So I think it's clear the Jews are guilty for killing Christ. Furthermore, any comments to this that express views to the contrary are by people who would want to sugar coat so to speak, the Jews responsibility. This may come out of fear of not being politically correct, being declared an "anti semite" or simply just "falling out" as it where from a society which is plainly run by the people whose name begins with "J"



This entire issue is far more complex and nuanced than as is stated above. Your view is not reflective of the entirety of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. For a well reasoned and detailed explanation of these teachings, I would suggest that the article entitled "AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN VIEW OF NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS" by Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou  http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8089 correctly states these teachings from a different  perspective than that expressed by many of the posters on this thread.

Of particular relevance to this discussion, Father George writes:

      "THREE VIEWS OF NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

An Orthodox scholar recently observed that there are basically three views that Christians have taken with regard to non-Christian religions. The first is that the non-Christian will be damned because there is no salvation outside the visible Body of Christ, the Church, The second is that the non-Christian may be saved in spite the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God. The third is that the non-Christian may be saved by means of the very religion he practices, for nonChristian religions may also contain saving truths.[9] These three views parallel the three approaches identified elsewhere as exclusivism. inclusivism and cultural pluralism.

The claim of exclusivism has been rejected by many Orthodox scholars as untenable. This is not done in the interests of facilitating missionary endeavors or to foster world peace. Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of Truth.[10] The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism. Some Orthodox scholars espouse the view characterized as cultural pluralism but with qualifications. Relativism and syncretism are denied. And the view that Christianity is simply one of the world religions offering the blessing of salvation is not accepted. The focus, rather, is on the Spirit of God, the Paraclete, who leads us "Into all the truth," where in Christ all become one.[11]

The approach taken in this paper is to emphasize "the middle way," that of inclusivism. It seems clear that the way of exclusivism is properly rejected as a matter of Truth. At the other extreme, the thin ice of cultural pluralism is fraught with danger."


Another article by Fr. George, THE PEOPLE OF GOD: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE,
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9285 further illustrates the complexity of the relationship among the peoples of God's creation.

Far too much hate and harm has been perpetrated in the name of Christ and His Church as a result of reducing the role of the Jewish nation to a simplistic 'they killed Christ.'

Again, quoting from Fr. George, our call to tolerance has to be foremost in our minds:

     "For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one cannot be a Christian if he/ she does not embrace the doctrine of tolerance as a mandate of Christian love.

This most significant teaching of tolerance in Orthodoxy is contained in an encyclical letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580). This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (1568) upon hearing of the mistreatment of the Jews. In it he states, "Injustice, therefore, is and stands, regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, as still injustice.

The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these unjust acts under the pretext that the injustice done is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said, "Do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."

I close with the thought that all human beings are the children of God created in His image, and tolerance of other people having different faith is an imperative commend given by Christ himself. I am also committed to the words of our Lord, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6)."






Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #386 on: May 05, 2011, 12:16:52 PM »
Well, to be fair, CI's post didn't address the question of whether the Jews, or anyone outside the Church, will be saved, but whether in fact the Jewish or Hebrew nation as a whole has some kind of formal responsibility for the death of Christ. He also didn't say anything about whether Jewish responsibility for deicide merits any particular kind of treatment by Christians. I think both those issues are relevant to the topic of this thread, but not to the point raised in that post.

The dogmatic significance of "Jewish responsibility" seems to lie in the fact that it was Christ's own nation that betrayed Him and delivered Him up for crucifixion. The texts for Holy Week make a big deal out of this, contrasting the OT Church of the Hebrews that rejected their God (except for the faithful remnant that formed the kernel of the NT Church), while the NT Church of the nations, the people previously rejected in the OT period, now accept the True God. I think it's understand to keep this in mind. It's not about some nationalist hatred that says "look, it's all the Jews' fault, aren't we so much better than them", but rather it's about the symbolic significance of this particular nation of the Hebrews, which God chose especially out of all the others to receive His Law and the prophecies of the Redeemer, rejecting the Redeemer when He finally comes. The texts do contrast the Church of the Gentiles favorably with the Church of the Hebrews, but this favorable comparison is not independent of the NT Church's continuing to worship the True God in Spirit and in truth. In other words, if NT Christians themselves betray Christ, by adopting heretical beliefs or by leading sinful lives, then they will suffer the same condemnation as the Jews.

In terms of what relevance this has to the Jews of today, I would say it's relevant for any Jew today who still thinks of himself as a member of the "Chosen People". Jews don't have a right to think of themselves as Chosen simply because of their ethnicity, since chosenness is conditional on maintaining the True Faith, which most Jews abandoned when they rejected Christ. The "Chosen People" now consists in the Church of Christ. You may be a Jew, or a Greek, or a Slav, or whatever, but if you cleave to the Truth then you are one of the "chosen". You aren't chosen simply by reason of who your parents were.

In terms of what the doctrine means for Orthodox Christians of today, I would say it certainly does not mean we can be complacent that just because we are not Jews we will be saved. It means that we must live up to the standard the Church imposes on us, when She chants that the NT Church gives Christ our True God due honor, as opposed to the Hebrews who betrayed Him. And we must also welcome with open arms any Jew who accepts the True Faith, since the "curse" they took upon themselves has nothing to do with their bloodline, but with their rejection of the Truth.

The doctrine has an added use in that it opposes one of the popular forms of religious syncretism today, which is to see Judaism and Christianity as "sibling" faiths. It also opposes "Christian Zionism", which is the belief that God's promise of the land of Israel to the Jews was something unconditional, and not part of a Covenant, namely the promise of the Hebrews to uphold the true faith delivered to them. When they rejected Christ, they rejected the true faith, and thus broke the covenant. There were many symbolical events that occurred after our Lord's crucifixion indicating the tearing up of the Old Covenant. One was the rending of the Temple veil in two, and the most dramatic was the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

I would add, however, that in some sense the Jews continue to be, if not Chosen, a nation of special concern to God. Starting from St Paul, there have been several Christian prophecies of Jewish mass conversion to the Church before the Last Day, and also at the same time of Jewish mass conversion to the cause of Antichrist. It's hard to do more than speculate about what these prophecies mean, and certainly I don't believe they should be taken as license for Zionist beliefs, but it's worth keeping them in mind.

Offline quester

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #387 on: May 05, 2011, 12:31:40 PM »
In terms of what relevance this has to the Jews of today, I would say it's relevant for any Jew today who still thinks of himself as a member of the "Chosen People". Jews don't have a right to think of themselves as Chosen simply because of their ethnicity, since chosenness is conditional on maintaining the True Faith, which most Jews abandoned when they rejected Christ. The "Chosen People" now consists in the Church of Christ. You may be a Jew, or a Greek, or a Slav, or whatever, but if you cleave to the Truth then you are one of the "chosen". You aren't chosen simply by reason of who your parents were.

In terms of what the doctrine means for Orthodox Christians of today, I would say it certainly does not mean we can be complacent that just because we are not Jews we will be saved. It means that we must live up to the standard the Church imposes on us, when She chants that the NT Church gives Christ our True God due honor, as opposed to the Hebrews who betrayed Him. And we must also welcome with open arms any Jew who accepts the True Faith, since the "curse" they took upon themselves has nothing to do with their bloodline, but with their rejection of the Truth.

Excellent post, and as a former Christian Zionist, I fully agree with your view. I, too, think we should not hate or blame the Jews as a whole since there will always be those individual Jews who convert. Those who accept Christ as their Savior and the promised Messiah are Jews in the fullest sense of the word. St. Paul was himself a fanatical Pharisee persecuting Christians, many of whom were ethnically Israelites themselves.

The problem is the Jews boast of their ancestry while Christ himself said that God is able to raise up sons of Abraham from stones. God's promise to Abraham was not merely to make a physical nation out of his offspring but a spiritual people, which is why his offspring is compared to the number of stars. The true Jew is him who accepts Christ as Lord and God regardless of ethnicity. True circumcision is the circumcision of the heart, to live according to God's will through the Holy Spirit.

Those Jews who continue to reject their Messiah and curse His name have condemned themselves. They are enemies of Christ and therefore enemies of the Church, though not necessarily any more than others who reject Christ. I believe this applies to both religious and non-religious Jews, regardless of whether they see themselves as "chosen" or not. After all, most Jews do identify with each other, no matter whether they are religious or not, and as a whole they do have a hostile disposition toward Christianity, except, of course, toward those parts of Christendom whose religion is Zionism.

Q.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 12:46:31 PM by quester »

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,839
  • Excelsior
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #388 on: May 05, 2011, 12:46:02 PM »
Quote from: Tallitot
how's this

Will do!   :D

My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #389 on: May 05, 2011, 12:55:32 PM »
Jonathan's post is excellent. Reading it together with my previous post is important so that this complex issue not be reduced to espousing that it is somehow an Orthodox teaching or virtue to hold a  virulent anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish world view. As many of us have said repeatedly, one can be anti-Zionist without be anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. The simplistic reduction of the Church's teachings has led to perverse results throughout history. This is not a stain upon the Church, but rather a sin of individuals and one we must strive to avoid.

Offline Jharek Carnelian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 185
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #390 on: May 05, 2011, 01:08:16 PM »
Quote
Another article by Fr. George, THE PEOPLE OF GOD: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE,
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9285 further illustrates the complexity of the relationship among the peoples of God's creation.

Far too much hate and harm has been perpetrated in the name of Christ and His Church as a result of reducing the role of the Jewish nation to a simplistic 'they killed Christ.'

Again, quoting from Fr. George, our call to tolerance has to be foremost in our minds:

     "For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one cannot be a Christian if he/ she does not embrace the doctrine of tolerance as a mandate of Christian love.

This most significant teaching of tolerance in Orthodoxy is contained in an encyclical letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580). This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (1568) upon hearing of the mistreatment of the Jews. In it he states, "Injustice, therefore, is and stands, regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, as still injustice.

The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these unjust acts under the pretext that the injustice done is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said, "Do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."

I close with the thought that all human beings are the children of God created in His image, and tolerance of other people having different faith is an imperative commend given by Christ himself. I am also committed to the words of our Lord, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6)."


What excellent points these two men make, most especially for me the Patriach's refusal to let those commiting injustice hide behind rhetoric that they 'deserved it' for purported ancient crimes or are somehow less worthy of justice for not sharing the faith of those persecuting them.



[/quote]
And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #391 on: May 05, 2011, 09:49:46 PM »
He observed the Passover. Everyone knows you eat brisket (of beef) at Passover.. Duh.

 :)  Chicken soup with matzo balls is also quite traditional.  ;)

One wonders just *why* some find the idea that Our Lord ate meat to be disagreeable/distasteful/unacceptable?  The common diet of the time and place didn't have meat every day as is more common now, but the dietary laws in the O.T. give some information, for example, and there are other sources of information.



Yes, it's a big leap to speculate that Jesus didn't eat meat. I think it is projecting modern sensibilities to an age where such things were not taken into account.

In the  first place, the richer you were the more meat was on your table. If you were poor or lower middle your diet was heavy with grains. Jesus by the time we get a glimpse of him was doing his missionary work among fishermen. It's no surprise that we read about him eating fish.

But we also know that he attended the Jewish Festivals, Holy days and weddings. Ordinary people would "kill the fatted calf", eat meat on those special days.   It's hard to believe that Jesus would have turned down meat when offered to him on one of these days.

So he probably ate grains and vegetables for the most part, fish when hanging out with fishermen and meat on special days.


It's amusing to know that Hitler was a vegetarian and that Jesus Christ ate meat.
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #392 on: May 12, 2011, 11:46:53 AM »
Ebor,

Quote
(2) I'm not absolutely sure He kept the Passover

From the Gospel of Matthew 26:17-18:
 17Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
 18And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

The Gospel of Luke 22:15:
"15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer"


May I ask why you seem to think that Jesus did not eat meat or did not follow the laws as set down in the OT?


Ebor

The obvious reading of the bold above is that the Last Supper was a Passover meal and included meat.

Still, it could be a prophetic reference suggesting that the Last Supper was mystically a Passover meal when He said "this bread is my body" (to paraphrase). Orthodox tradition teaches that the Passover was, I think, on Holy Saturday, rather than on the Last Supper as Akimori said. I read on one Orthodoxy site that the Last Supper was a Jewish Begamot meal, with bread.

Quote
the items at a Passover meal have been plainly set out in the Book of Exodus with the unleavened bread, bitter herbs and lamb
This goes back to the question of whether the Last Supper itself was a physically-apparent Passover meal, or whether the Passover was that Saturday instead. St John's Gospel I think portrays the Passover as that Saturday.

So if you think the Last Supper was a regularly-scheduled Passover meal, then the question arises whether it was followed "by the book" so to speak.
If you think the Last Supper was a begamoth meal or another kind and the regulardly scheduled Passover was that Saturday, then the question of whether meat was used becomes more open.


Quote
Quote
because there were dissident Jews like John the Baptist who acted differently than the conventional ways. John the Baptist for example ate locusts and wild honey I think, so it seems unlikely that John would've had Passover. Also Josephus the historian got education from a lone hermit, who seemed somewhat outside the common religious society.
Jesus was not John and we don't know what else John ate besides the reference to locusts and wild honey.  Are you thinking of a particular part of Josephus' writing?  Would you please explain more about what you are thinking of here? 
  I forget where Josephus wrote about his hermit teacher. The point is that there were religious teachers who were like dissidents and hermits outside the main religious society, and Jesus could have been one of them and this could reflect in his religious ways.

Health and Happiness to you.



The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #393 on: May 12, 2011, 12:07:47 PM »
Ebor,

I am not sure Jesus did or didn't eat meat. It seems open to me either way.

In any case my reasons for thinking he didn't are that- there was a prophecy saying He will be caled a Nazarene that I think the Christians applied to their own views. The OT Nazorenes I think might have have restricted detary habits, and I vaguely remember this is mentioned in the OT, like about how they ate locusts. The early Christians sometimes referred to themselves as Nazarenes. And after all, we have Jesus of Nazareth. There was an early Christian saint, apparently a Jewish Christian from Judea, named Hegesippus who wrote that St James, Jesus' brother was vegetarian. Then we have the fact that as Jonathan said, the Last Supper is depicted with fish in icons and the NT talks alot about Jesus eating fish.

On the other hand, St Paul portrayed making vegetarianism a religious rule or custom in Christianity as ridiculous. Plus you can also make the argument from silence that it doesn't say Jesus was vegetarian either. And then there's the tradition that He kept the Law perfectly. Now this could mean different than what it connotes, because for example Jesus picked grain on the Sabbath. Now Jesus didn't consider this breaking the rule, but the point is that the Law might be construed differently. The Sermon on the Mount has Jesus speaking in ways that run in a different direction than the Law, like Jesus' advice against using vows to the Lord. An idea that you have heard it said use meat, but use fish instead seems consistent with the spirit of such counter-running teachings. I am just making this up. The point is that Jesus did teach about the Law differently, than we might feel ourselves from looking at the Law's clear meaning.

From a practical standpoint, it seems likely to me that in 33 years of living in a carnivorous society Jesus probably did eat meat at some point. But guess what, the Bible doesn't say Jesus never caught a cold either, and there must have been alot of illnesses going around. Yet one protestant scholar commented that it was remarkable the Bible never said Jesus was sick at one point. Now maybe during the passion when His sweat was described as like blood something happened with an illness.

The point is that for me it's an open question whether He was vegetarian.



Jonathan,
I have wondered about the question of Jesus Christ eating or not eating meat. As far as I know, none of the Fathers make any explicit comment on this, but there seems to be an element of unwritten tradition that holds that He did not eat meat. For instance, in the icons for the Mystical Supper He and the 12 are always represented with a fish on the table, rather than the lamb prescribed by the Law. Yet the Fathers are also explicit that our Lord kept the Law perfectly. My take on this at the moment is that this is one of those highly mysterious traditions that we cannot really explain, but we ought to accept without prying too much into it. It's rather like the tradition surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos, which seems to have been "hidden" from public view for centuries after the event, and yet which the Church believes in firmly and now celebrates in Her public service. A rationalist will typically take this to mean the tradition was fabricated after the event, although that then begs the question of how it came to be universally accepted by the Church, given that everyone was deeply attached to preserving tradition exactly.

An even better example is the requirement that the bread used for the Eucharist be leavened. We know that Christ ate the Paschal meal with the 12 that night, which could only have meant they ate unleavened bread, in accordance with the Law of Moses. And yet unwritten tradition holds firmly that the bread our Lord blessed and gave to His disciples was leavened. Did they eat the unleavened bread first, with Christ then consecrating the leavened bread as His Body? Or was this a mysterious abrogation of the Law, justified by the fact that our Lord was offering Himself as the Lamb? This may also explain why they may not have eaten actual lamb at that meal.

I don't know if these are the right answers, but, as a traditionalist, I think it's important always to give tradition the benefit of the doubt. :)

Good point about fish depicted in the icon of the meal, and about the monastic lifestyle, which avoids or significantly restricts eating meat.

You could be factually wrong when you say: "We know that Christ ate the Paschal meal with the 12 that night, which could only have meant they ate unleavened bread, in accordance with the Law of Moses." I think St Johns gospel depicts the Paschal holiday as that Saturday instead.


Marc,

You make a good point when you say:
Quote
In the  first place, the richer you were the more meat was on your table. If you were poor or lower middle your diet was heavy with grains. Jesus by the time we get a glimpse of him was doing his missionary work among fishermen. It's no surprise that we read about him eating fish.

But we also know that he attended the Jewish Festivals, Holy days and weddings. Ordinary people would "kill the fatted calf", eat meat on those special days.   It's hard to believe that Jesus would have turned down meat when offered to him on one of these days.

From a practical standpoint, this is a good example of his contact with meat eating society and events. However, I don't have a problem believing Jesus had the willpower to refuse things offered to him, like how Jesus refused earthly power. To me it seems more dependant on whether He was a meat eater in the first place. Further, I don't think it's simply projecting modern sensibilities, since there were vegetarian religious or philosophical groups in the ancient world, just as there are modern vegetarian groups.

So it still seems like an open question to me how much he ate meat. It could be that he ate meat when it was offered but then as part of his ministry, teaching, and religious customs he avoided it like John the Baptist.

Peace
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 12:32:16 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #394 on: May 13, 2011, 06:04:49 PM »
Ebor,

I am not sure Jesus did or didn't eat meat. It seems open to me either way.

In any case my reasons for thinking he didn't are that- there was a prophecy saying He will be caled a Nazarene that I think the Christians applied to their own views. The OT Nazorenes I think might have have restricted detary habits, and I vaguely remember this is mentioned in the OT, like about how they ate locusts.

Are you perhaps thinking of the Nazirite Vow?  That is set down in the OT that such a person not drink any wine or strong drink, not cut his/her hair such as Samson. John the Baptist was another who was said to not take any strong drink.  You could use an on-line Bible site with search function to find what it might be that you vaguely remember and, if you do, post it here to add to the conversation.

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #395 on: May 13, 2011, 06:10:47 PM »
I forget where Josephus wrote about his hermit teacher. The point is that there were religious teachers who were like dissidents and hermits outside the main religious society, and Jesus could have been one of them and this could reflect in his religious ways.

Or Our Lord might not have been 'one of them'.  When you mention "Josephus" do you mean the person who is known now usually as Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jew who was taken prisoner by the Romans in 67 A.D. and wrote Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus   ?  Can you give some general idea of where you read this, please?

Ebor
 
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #396 on: May 13, 2011, 07:32:42 PM »
I forget where Josephus wrote about his hermit teacher. The point is that there were religious teachers who were like dissidents and hermits outside the main religious society, and Jesus could have been one of them and this could reflect in his religious ways.

Or Our Lord might not have been 'one of them'.  When you mention "Josephus" do you mean the person who is known now usually as Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jew who was taken prisoner by the Romans in 67 A.D. and wrote Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus   ?  Can you give some general idea of where you read this, please?

Ebor
 

Ebor,

See for example:
Quote
"that he stayed besides with one particular ascetic, called Bantis"
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS-WILLIAM WHISTON-1865 EDITION
Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who recorded Life in Galilee at ... he stayed besides with one particular ascetic, called Bantis , ...
www.scribd.com/.../THE-COMPLETE-WORKS-OF-FLAVIUS-JOSEPHUS- WILLIAM-WHISTON-1865-EDITION -

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F35685542%2FTHE-COMPLETE-WORKS-OF-FLAVIUS-JOSEPHUS-WILLIAM-WHISTON-1865-EDITION&ei=p77NTd-zDIPs0gGY8OWLDg&usg=AFQjCNFNtUgm9u1k4Vi0jLDvH-P8o-HfOw

My point isn't that Bantis or Josephus were vegetarians, but that there was a dissident subculture, like in the days of the prophets, where people were outside the official religious society and critical of it. So one need not match Jesus and the disciples exactly within a rigid box, like today when if one is a good R.Catholic or Orthodox we can be certain about alot of the person's religious customs. So we can't say for sure that Jesus did something because it was common in the official religious society of His time, although it makes it likely.

Peace
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 07:33:23 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #397 on: May 19, 2011, 11:05:47 AM »
Thank you for the reference.  It's always helpful to have the primary source material to check.

It is well known that there were different sub-groups and "outside" (to use your word) groups of Judaism during that time. 

This is still sheer speculation about Our Lord, however, when "could" or "might" or "maybe" is used.  We have the Gospels as the records.  The remark that they don't mention Jesus ever being sick is another simple speculation from silence.  One might ask "Why would they?"  or "How would those who were with Him during His last three years know what happened when He was a child?"   How many biographies of any one mention minor things like colds or scrapes or whatever?

Ebor




"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Alcuin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #398 on: May 19, 2011, 11:07:08 AM »
I read somewhere that the Roman legion that performed the crucifixion was from what is today Switzerland.

So, blame the Swiss.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 11:07:34 AM by Alcuin »

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #399 on: May 19, 2011, 11:13:21 AM »
Interesting bit of lore.  Do you recall where you read this?   :) 
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #400 on: May 19, 2011, 11:15:14 AM »
I read somewhere that the Roman legion that performed the crucifixion was from what is today Switzerland.

So, blame the Swiss.

I know I do..Cold hearted lot they are.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 11:16:00 AM by Marc1152 »
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #401 on: May 19, 2011, 11:20:23 AM »
Nah, not cold, just very tidy.  Remember Asterix in Switzerland?   ;)
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #402 on: May 20, 2011, 08:00:59 PM »
What was the point of all this discussion? It was to determine what evidence there was that Jesus Christ ever ate meat or not. The evidence seems to be negative on the whole. Nothing in Scripture or the Fathers ever said explicitly that He did not eat meat, but then nothing ever said He did, and there seems to be some unwritten tradition that He did not.

If Christ could be said to have broken the Law by not eating meat, wouldn't He have also broken the Law by never marrying?

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,987
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #403 on: June 03, 2011, 05:16:56 PM »
IMO the jews of that time and even today cant get past the legalism of how they EXPECT these prophesies to be fulfilled, even though they were fulfilled.

primuspilus
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,567
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: the church's teaching on the jews
« Reply #404 on: June 03, 2011, 05:40:40 PM »
And yet unwritten tradition holds firmly that the bread our Lord blessed and gave to His disciples was leavened.
What gives you that idea?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 05:43:01 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net