OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:30:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 'Jews' = Judahites, 'Jews' = Judeans, 'Jews' = Edomites??  (Read 6435 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« on: June 07, 2010, 07:59:18 PM »

I am convinced that many - if not most of the 'Jews' (Judeans) in the New Testament narrative were actually Edomites.

The Old Testament in English presents the word that should be translated 'Judahite' as 'Jew', while the New Testament in English presents the word that should be translated 'Judean' also as 'Jew.'

It seems clear to me that these two words are not synonymous!

Here's an e-mail I sent to Presvytera Jeannie Constantinou which spells out my point... (I would also love to hear people's take on all of this):

Quote
"I hear people all of the time (and I've now heard you as well) equating the 'Jews' with Hebrews and O.T. Israelites. This is one of my pet peeves, and the majority of 'Christians' do this! Where have they gotten this idea?

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' - or to call a contemporary 'Jew' an Israelite or Hebrew."
- Jewish Almanac (1980 ed.)

Many times already in your podcasts, I have heard you use the word 'Jew(s)' or 'Jewish' - when it would have been correct to say Hebrew(s) [before Jacob's time], Israelite(s) or Judahite(s). Now I am sure you know that Adam, Seth, Noah or Moses were not 'Jews'... Nor was Joshua ever called a 'Jew'. This also goes for Abraham, Isaac & Jacob: NONE of these were (or were EVER called in the Scriptures) 'Jews'!

Now, since we know that God Himself changed Jacob's name to Israel - we could say that Jacob was the first Israelite... Before him - there were only Hebrews! Certainly you could NOT correctly call them 'Jews'! Yet - you (and most of so-called 'Christendom') do just that in your podcasts!

In the O.T., the word 'Jews' appears for the very first time in II Kings 16:6 (KJV), with the 'Jews' being driven from Elath by Rezin - king of Syria. (This is an interesting verse in another way too - I'll come back to it later.) A quick cross-reference to the Septuagint (IV Kingdoms in the LXX/OSB) show that the translation there shows NOT 'Jews'... but (more accurately) 'men of Judah'. Therefore, it would be correct to say that the very first 'Jew' was Judah. All of the Hebrews which came before Judah then - were NOT 'Jews'.

But even here - in most Bibles the word 'Jew(s)' is entirely un-neccessary (as evidenced by the LXX/OSB) and when the O.T. Is combined with the N.T., this made-up English word only causes confusion... And frankly - makes me think that all of this is no accident. Judah of course was the patriarch of the tribe of Judah (one of 13 if we include the tribe of Levi). If we look at the other Israelite tribes, they are all translated into English in a similar manner: the tribe of Levi become known as 'LevITES'... the tribe of Benjamin become 'BenjamITES'... the tribe of Reuben become 'ReubenITES'.... the tribe of Gad become 'GadITES'.

But when it comes to Judah and his tribe - are they called as we would expect - 'JudahITES'? No! Instead we end up with the made-up word 'Jew(s)'! Strange? I thought so... Anyhow, it seems clear that in the O.T., the word 'Jew(s)' really means Judahites... At first designating a tribal racial member of the Judahites and later, a resident of the kingdom of Judah (regardless of whether that resident was actually a tribal Hebrew Israelite or not.)

Then (during the Roman occupation) in the New Testament we also find the word 'Jew(s)'... But does it still mean 'Judahites'? The temporal Kingdom of Judah is no more, so 'Jew' now designates a resident of the Roman province of Judea OR Judahites.

Therefore the word SHOULD have been translated as Judean(s) when applicable. This would have made MUCH more sense and avoided much confusion! But the words 'Judean(s)' & 'Judahite(s)' are NOT found anywhere in the Bible! Those called 'Jews' in the New Testament were NOT all tribal Judahites - many of the residents of Roman Judea were not even Israelites!

So you see how it's very misleading to call them 'Jews' because it draws a false parallel to the Judahites of the Old Testament. One could be a Judean ('Jew') without being a Judahite ('Jew') - and vice-versa. Why use the same word? The truth is - many of the residents of New Testament Judea were actually Edomites!

I'm sure you can grasp the significance of this!

According to I Maccabees 5:3-8, the nation of Edom (Idumea) ceased to be in 126 BC when John Hyrcanus completed the conquest began in 163 BC by Judas Maccabeus, forcing the Edomites to be circumcised. According to Josephus - thereafter these Edomites were considered nothing other than Judeans. So Edom was simply absorbed into Judea.

Anyhow my point is this: The word that should have been rendered in English as Judea was instead transliterated into the loaded made-up new word - 'Jew'.

It makes quite a difference to the meaning conveyed by the Scriptures... Is this an accident? Look at this verse from John in two variations:

'Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him...' (This implies that He spoke to Judahites; Israelites; Hebrews.)

'Then Jesus said to those Judeans who believed Him...' (This conveys that He was speaking to people of Judea - the PLACE, who could have been of any nationality, and were not neccessarily Hebrew Israelites... and could easily have been Edomites.)

The historian Strabo, writing around the time of Christ... held that the Idumeans (Edomites) constituted the majority of the population of Western Judea - where they comingled with the Judeans and adopted the Israelite customs. (Strabo, Geography - Bk 16.2.34)

"John Hyrcanus conquered the whole of Edom and undertook the forced conversion of it's inhabitants to Judaism." (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XIII 9,1)

"Thenceforth the Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol 6, pg 378 [1971])

"Thus at this juncture of time the Edomites were incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks & the Romans 'Idumea.'" [Mark 3:8; Ptolemy - Geography V. 16] (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol V, pg 41... Ca. 1904)

According to Josephus, it was the Edomite Herods who ruthlessly ended the Judahite Maccabean dynasty and its Hasmonean high priestly family; it was the Herods who then appointed the high priests (including Annas) - and took over the gov't of the Judeans, and finally lined up with Titus in the siege of Jerusalem.

So how many of those in the N.T. Who were called 'Jews' were really Edomites - but were still called 'Jews' because they lived in Judea? If these Judeans weren't all Judahites (or even Israelites), then how misleading is it for them to also be called 'Jews' as the O.T. Judahites were called 'Jews'... implying that  'Jew' is synonymous with Hebrew or Israelite? VERY!

Now - back to the verses found II Kings 16:6 - first in the Masoretic O.T. Of the KJV...

"At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the SYRIANS came to Elath and dwelt there unto this day."

O.K. - now here is the same verse from IV Kingdoms 16:6 from my OSB w/ the Septuagint...

"At that time, Rezin king of Syria returned Elath to Syria and drove the men of Judah from Elath. Then the EDOMITES went to Elath, where they continue to dwell to this day."

See the difference there? Is this an accident? Now consider that King Herod was an Edomite... HOW MANY 'Jews' (Judeans) in Christ's time were REALLY Edomites?"

Since Christ said He came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel... Is it not possible that all of the Israelites became Christians, while the Edomites were the ones who went on to be known as 'Jews'?

Hoping that this clarifies for everyone something about where I'm coming from.

Thanks
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,214


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2010, 08:12:03 PM »

ISTM you're awfully hung up on making sure we know who the "Jews" "really are".  So what's your point in all this?  Can you not discuss anything else?  Why is it so terribly important we know what you "know" about the "Jews"? Huh
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 08:13:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2010, 09:58:36 PM »

The only thing that disappoints me is that he didn't invoke Godwin's Law in his OP. Wink
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,290


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2010, 11:11:46 PM »

OK, Saint Iaint, let's see the original biblical Greek of the verses you cited.  Focus on the bolded text which is translated below:

First and foremost, IV Kingdoms 16:6

Quote
6 ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐπέστρεψε Ραασσὼν βασιλεὺς Συρίας τὴν Αἰλὰθ τῇ Συρίᾳ καὶ ἐξέβαλε τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐξ Αἰλὰθ καὶ ᾿Ιδουμαῖοι ἦλθον εἰς Αἰλὰθ καὶ κατῴκησαν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.

τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους = men of Judah (inhabitants)
᾿Ιδουμαῖοι = Idumeans / Edomites (race)

Now, let's look at I Maccabees 5:3-8

Quote
3 καὶ ἐπολέμει ᾿Ιούδας πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ῾Ησαῦ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιδουμαίᾳ, τὴν ᾿Ακραβαττήνην, ὅτι περιεκάθηντο τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς πληγὴν μεγάλην καὶ συνέστειλεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλαβε τὰ σκῦλα αὐτῶν. 4 καὶ ἐμνήσθη τῆς κακίας υἱῶν Βαιάν, οἳ ἦσαν τῷ λαῷ εἰς παγίδα καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον ἐν τῷ ἐνεδρεύειν αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς· 5 καὶ συνεκλείσθησαν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς πύργοις, καὶ παρενέβαλεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐνεπύρισε τοὺς πύργους αὐτῆς ἐν πυρὶ σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐνοῦσι. 6 καὶ διεπέρασεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Αμμὼν καὶ εὗρε χεῖρα κραταιὰν καὶ λαὸν πολὺν καὶ Τιμόθεον ἡγούμενον αὐτῶν· 7 καὶ συνῆψε πρὸς αὐτοὺς πολέμους πολλούς, καὶ συνετρίβησαν πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτούς. 8 καὶ προκατελάβετο τὴν ᾿Ιαζὴρ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν.

εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν = to Judah (province, not race)

Better work on your biblical Greek.   Wink
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2010, 11:18:48 PM »

I think you all should read it again.

Slowly.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2010, 11:28:57 PM »

I think you all should read it again.

Slowly.

Are you asserting that reading it more slowly will influence the reader more than reading it quickly?  I can understand a "not reading it at all" vs. a "reading it thoroughly" dichotomy, but a "reading quickly" vs. "reading slowly" only seems to work if "reading quickly" = "reading incompletely," something that has neither been proven nor asserted here, and which certainly cannot be posited as a law here, considering the advancement in speed reading techniques and instruction, which seemingly have proliferated beyond their original niche of Graduate and Post-Graduate students into the more general population of leisure readers and High Schoolers, who seem to be under greater pressure to accomplish more technical reading before entering college than they ever had before, only to be confronted with a curriculum that largely repeats what they had covered in high school for at least a few months, or which is slowed down to the pace of the lowest common denominator, who are not served under the present arrangement because they are being shoveled through without absorption of the material, and in doing so they are also holding back the rest of the students, who are not exposed to the proper amount of material that would be consonant with their abilities to learn, which have been greatly aided by the earlier attempts at teaching reading skills to children using advanced techniques and multimedia programs...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,214


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2010, 01:54:01 AM »

I think you all should read it again.

Slowly.
Do you promise, then, to write more slowly?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,315



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2010, 06:22:50 AM »

The Old Testament refers to the Jews Abraham's children. John's Gospel refers to those Jews who rejected Jesus as "the Jews". Paul said "there is no Jew or Greek."

Point is, a word can have several legitimate meanings.

Any definition of "Jew" is fine. Don't hate.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,659



« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2010, 08:21:54 AM »

OK, Saint Iaint, let's see the original biblical Greek of the verses you cited.  Focus on the bolded text which is translated below:

First and foremost, IV Kingdoms 16:6

Quote
6 ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐπέστρεψε Ραασσὼν βασιλεὺς Συρίας τὴν Αἰλὰθ τῇ Συρίᾳ καὶ ἐξέβαλε τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐξ Αἰλὰθ καὶ ᾿Ιδουμαῖοι ἦλθον εἰς Αἰλὰθ καὶ κατῴκησαν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.

τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους = men of Judah (inhabitants)
᾿Ιδουμαῖοι = Idumeans / Edomites (race)

Now, let's look at I Maccabees 5:3-8

Quote
3 καὶ ἐπολέμει ᾿Ιούδας πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ῾Ησαῦ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιδουμαίᾳ, τὴν ᾿Ακραβαττήνην, ὅτι περιεκάθηντο τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς πληγὴν μεγάλην καὶ συνέστειλεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλαβε τὰ σκῦλα αὐτῶν. 4 καὶ ἐμνήσθη τῆς κακίας υἱῶν Βαιάν, οἳ ἦσαν τῷ λαῷ εἰς παγίδα καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον ἐν τῷ ἐνεδρεύειν αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς· 5 καὶ συνεκλείσθησαν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς πύργοις, καὶ παρενέβαλεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐνεπύρισε τοὺς πύργους αὐτῆς ἐν πυρὶ σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐνοῦσι. 6 καὶ διεπέρασεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Αμμὼν καὶ εὗρε χεῖρα κραταιὰν καὶ λαὸν πολὺν καὶ Τιμόθεον ἡγούμενον αὐτῶν· 7 καὶ συνῆψε πρὸς αὐτοὺς πολέμους πολλούς, καὶ συνετρίβησαν πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτούς. 8 καὶ προκατελάβετο τὴν ᾿Ιαζὴρ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν.

εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν = to Judah (province, not race)

Better work on your biblical Greek.   Wink
Now that some sane people have posted: this week I was at a Greek Church and I noticed that the Tropar was translated "When the stone was sealed by the Judeans"  I thought a rather interesting use of the ambigouity. As to the OP, according to the Bible (Deut. 23:7-8), it doesn't make a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2010, 06:16:52 AM »

That's the extent of all the intellect on this site?

Seriously - not one person on here can comprehend what I'm saying?!? All you can do is ridicule me and insinuate that I'm an 'anti-Semite'? (HA!)



Quote from: PeterTheAleut
"ISTM you're awfully hung up on making sure we know who the "Jews" "really are".  So what's your point in all this?"

Honestly - did you even read my post? I made "my point" abundantly clear!

My point is - the majority of 'Christians' today think that:

  • 'Jew' is synonymous with 'Israelite'...
  • The 'Jews' of today are the descendants of the 'Jews' of the Old Testament...
  • The 'Jews' of today hold the faith of the 'Jews' of the O.T. before Christ...

My point is - the English word 'Jew' is a made-up word used to falsely equate today's Talmudic Pharisees and their kin with the Israelites of the Bible (even though Scripture is clear that since Christ's coming - Christians are the Israel of God and the faithful Israelites became Christians!)

My point is that support for the Zionist entity in Palestine masquerading as 'Israel' and so-called 'Jews' is support for the spirit of anti-Christ!



Quote from: SolEX01
"OK, Saint Iaint, let's see the original biblical Greek of the verses you cited. (...) Better work on your biblical Greek."

You've come off as quite smug... Was that your intention?

The verses you've listed actually help to prove my point!

If the original Greek meant "men of Judah" - then why do the vast majority of English Bibles translate it as 'Jews'? Why don't they just say "men of Judah" (like the OSB does)?

I know  there was a Geek word for Edomite! I'm asking why the majority of English Bibles (based on the rabbinically censored Masoretic text) insert the word 'SYRIANS' where the original LXX read 'EDOMITES'?

The New Testament was written in Greek... so where are the words 'Edomite(s)' or 'Idumean(s)' in the N.T.? The Edomites are called 'Jews' because they lived in Judea!

When you read the word 'Jews' - do you think Edomites?!? Or do you think 'Hebrews/Israelites'?



Fr. George,

I'm not amused. Do you think you could be serious long enough to give my post a genuine reply that relates to the topic?



Quote from: rakovsky
"Point is, a word can have several legitimate meanings."

Yeah - except I'm telling you that in Greek these were several different  words... with different spellings and also different meanings. Translated into English - in the New Testament they are given the same spelling and the connotation of the same meaning!

I don't hate anyone... but I do hate LIES!



Quote from: ialmisry
"Now that some sane people have posted: this week I was at a Greek Church and I noticed that the Tropar was translated 'When the stone was sealed by the Judeans'."

Well, you're quite the slanderer too aren't you? Just because you all can't understand what I'm saying - doesn't mean you have to resort to insults! It's not my fault your reading comprehension is lacking...

Anyhow... you too have helped me to prove my point. The Greeks know that the word translated into English in the New Testament as 'Jews' - SHOULD be translated as 'Judeans'.

Not all of the Judeans  were 'Jews' in the way that all of you people think!

Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,315



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2010, 06:24:01 AM »

Please tell me- I heard some kooky-looking racist/Nazi websites who would claim to quote a few words of +Chrysostom "God hates you [Jews] and I hate you." Problem is, the sites never say where they got these phrases from! Please tell me if you know.

I believe God loves Jews. I like Jews. I even need to love my enemies, and that is much much harder than loving Jews.

God help us love our enemies. This is very hard for me.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 06:31:16 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2010, 07:25:27 AM »

Please tell me- I heard some kooky-looking racist/Nazi websites who would claim to quote a few words of +Chrysostom "God hates you [Jews] and I hate you." Problem is, the sites never say where they got these phrases from! Please tell me if you know.

I believe God loves Jews. I like Jews. I even need to love my enemies, and that is much much harder than loving Jews.

God help us love our enemies. This is very hard for me.


Rakovsky,

I don't frequent any "racist/Nazi websites"... so I can't say for sure which exact quote you're speaking of...

But I'm going to guess any quotes about 'Jews' from St. John Chrysostom probably came from his so-called 'Eight Homilies Against The Jews'...

They can be found here:

St. John Chrysostom - Adversus Judaeos

God loves everyone... but not everyone loves Him!

I think there is a distinction between our own personal enemies and the enemies of God. The one ‘unforgivable sin’ in this age and in the next is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Bishop Kalistos Ware says that the unforgivable sin is committed by willfully rejecting God, by attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil.

The 'Jews' uttered just such an accusation against Christ by sying that He cast out devils by the devil… and their anti-Christ Talmud repeats the blasphemy to this day for generation after generation of modern-day Pharisees who call themselves ‘Jews’.

And so Christ asks them:

”Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”
- Matthew 23:33
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,315



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2010, 07:39:07 AM »


God loves everyone... but not everyone loves Him!

I think there is a distinction between our own personal enemies and the enemies of God. The one ‘unforgivable sin’ in this age and in the next is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Bishop Kalistos Ware says that the unforgivable sin is committed by willfully rejecting God, by attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil.

The 'Jews' uttered just such an accusation against Christ by sying that He cast out devils by the devil… and their anti-Christ Talmud repeats the blasphemy to this day for generation after generation of modern-day Pharisees who call themselves ‘Jews’.

I am glad you say that God loves everyone. This doesn't seem to be what Chrysostom is saying, unfortunately. Maybe if he was more nuanced like God loves them but hates their sins, or he loves AND hates them, it would be ok. Is that what +Chrysostom is saying?

Also I disagree that the sins are unforgiveable. Apostles asked Jesus how then can we be saved (maybe scared they had blasphemed the Holy Spirit at some point in their lives- seen a good work and condemned it), but Jesus says all things are possible. Many Jews who accepted the Talmud became Christian later.

I like more what +Paul wrote about the Jews being judged according to the law. I don't think we know how exactly God will judge.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2010, 08:30:12 AM »

Rakovsky,

You have to understand that St. Chrysostom argued using rhetoric - which was a specific method of his time that didn't quite have the same meaning as it does today. Read all eight and give him a chance... Don't reserve judgement; he was a man of his time!

Quote
"Also I disagree that the sins are unforgiveable. Apostles asked Jesus how then can we be saved (maybe scared they had blasphemed the Holy Spirit at some point in their lives- seen a good work and condemned it), but Jesus says all things are possible. Many Jews who accepted the Talmud became Christian later."

Christ's words:

"Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"
- Mark 3:28-29

"But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."
- Luke 12:9-10
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,315



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2010, 03:05:30 PM »

Thank you for more reasonable, non-racist response showing caring towards Jews in explanation of Chrysostom's writings. Also want to here more from you on this.



Sure, - Mark 3:28-29 and - Luke 12:9-10 are Jesus' words. I am not sure how this solves the problem of you saying on the one hand that the Talmud and Jews accepting the Talmud blaspheme the Holy Spirit, while on the other hand Jews accepting the Talmud have come to know and believe in Christ, and achieve communion with Jesus, have full faith etc.,- you did not conclude whether they would go to hell, all you cited were two verses suggesting that their blasphemy would not be forgiven ever.

But then the apostles asked how can anyone be saved and Jesus said anything is possible with God.

So first he said it is impossible, but then he says ALL things are possible. It is a glory to God if this is true and He will fix all bad things with his compassion.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2010, 06:25:51 PM »

Rakovsky,

In those verses you referred to, Jesus is talking about the difficulty of rich men entering the kingdom of heaven... not blasphemers of the Holy Spirit.

So in taking all of this in context, His words do not contradict - for He speaks of specifically different instances and conduct. Regardless - with Him, all things are possible. See here:

"Jesus said to him, 'If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.' Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, 'Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!'"
- Mark 9:23-24


But notice the caveat: If  you can believe...

Quote
"I am not sure how this solves the problem of you saying on the one hand that the Talmud and Jews accepting the Talmud blaspheme the Holy Spirit, while on the other hand Jews accepting the Talmud have come to know and believe in Christ, and achieve communion with Jesus, have full faith etc.,- you did not conclude whether they would go to hell, all you cited were two verses suggesting that their blasphemy would not be forgiven ever."

Of course God wills what he wills... and His will be done. It is certainly not our place to judge who will go to hell; or to speculate on anyone's destination in the age to come.

Listen to these podcasts by Bishop Kalistos, he explains it better than I:

Questions About Confession - Pt. 1

Questions About Confession - Pt. 2

Mystery Of The Eucharist - Pt. 1

Mystery Of The Eucharist - Pt. 2

I forget which one addresses the 'unforgivable sin'... I'm pretty sure it's one of the ones on 'Confession...' - but they're relatively short & all good listening anyway I think...
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,315



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2010, 06:34:13 PM »

thanks
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2010, 02:09:51 PM »

Quote from: SolEX01
"OK, Saint Iaint, let's see the original biblical Greek of the verses you cited. (...) Better work on your biblical Greek."

You've come off as quite smug... Was that your intention?

The verses you've listed actually help to prove my point!

If the original Greek meant "men of Judah" - then why do the vast majority of English Bibles translate it as 'Jews'? Why don't they just say "men of Judah" (like the OSB does)?

I know  there was a Geek word for Edomite! I'm asking why the majority of English Bibles (based on the rabbinically censored Masoretic text) insert the word 'SYRIANS' where the original LXX read 'EDOMITES'?

The New Testament was written in Greek... so where are the words 'Edomite(s)' or 'Idumean(s)' in the N.T.? The Edomites are called 'Jews' because they lived in Judea!

When you read the word 'Jews' - do you think Edomites?!? Or do you think 'Hebrews/Israelites'?

Can we have one of our Syrian Orthodox members quote the Peshitta regarding this issue please? For two reasons:

1) The similarity between Hebrew and Aramaic concerning terms such as Yehudim/Yehudaya
2) The Peshitta has much less of a polemical history than the Masoretic Text & LXX
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 02:10:42 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2010, 02:26:29 PM »

That's the extent of all the intellect on this site?

Seriously - not one person on here can comprehend what I'm saying?!? All you can do is ridicule me and insinuate that I'm an 'anti-Semite'? (HA!)



Quote from: PeterTheAleut
"ISTM you're awfully hung up on making sure we know who the "Jews" "really are".  So what's your point in all this?"

Honestly - did you even read my post? I made "my point" abundantly clear!

My point is - the majority of 'Christians' today think that:

  • 'Jew' is synonymous with 'Israelite'...
  • The 'Jews' of today are the descendants of the 'Jews' of the Old Testament...
  • The 'Jews' of today hold the faith of the 'Jews' of the O.T. before Christ...

My point is - the English word 'Jew' is a made-up word used to falsely equate today's Talmudic Pharisees and their kin with the Israelites of the Bible (even though Scripture is clear that since Christ's coming - Christians are the Israel of God and the faithful Israelites became Christians!)

My point is that support for the Zionist entity in Palestine masquerading as 'Israel' and so-called 'Jews' is support for the spirit of anti-Christ!



Quote from: SolEX01
"OK, Saint Iaint, let's see the original biblical Greek of the verses you cited. (...) Better work on your biblical Greek."

You've come off as quite smug... Was that your intention?

The verses you've listed actually help to prove my point!

If the original Greek meant "men of Judah" - then why do the vast majority of English Bibles translate it as 'Jews'? Why don't they just say "men of Judah" (like the OSB does)?

I know  there was a Geek word for Edomite! I'm asking why the majority of English Bibles (based on the rabbinically censored Masoretic text) insert the word 'SYRIANS' where the original LXX read 'EDOMITES'?

The New Testament was written in Greek... so where are the words 'Edomite(s)' or 'Idumean(s)' in the N.T.? The Edomites are called 'Jews' because they lived in Judea!

When you read the word 'Jews' - do you think Edomites?!? Or do you think 'Hebrews/Israelites'?



Fr. George,

I'm not amused. Do you think you could be serious long enough to give my post a genuine reply that relates to the topic?



Quote from: rakovsky
"Point is, a word can have several legitimate meanings."

Yeah - except I'm telling you that in Greek these were several different  words... with different spellings and also different meanings. Translated into English - in the New Testament they are given the same spelling and the connotation of the same meaning!

I don't hate anyone... but I do hate LIES!



Quote from: ialmisry
"Now that some sane people have posted: this week I was at a Greek Church and I noticed that the Tropar was translated 'When the stone was sealed by the Judeans'."

Well, you're quite the slanderer too aren't you? Just because you all can't understand what I'm saying - doesn't mean you have to resort to insults! It's not my fault your reading comprehension is lacking...

Anyhow... you too have helped me to prove my point. The Greeks know that the word translated into English in the New Testament as 'Jews' - SHOULD be translated as 'Judeans'.

Not all of the Judeans  were 'Jews' in the way that all of you people think!



You are kidding right! What in the world possessed you to say, among other equally offensive things, the following?

To Father George: "I am not amused."

To Isa: "You are quite the slanderer."

To rakovsky: "I do hate LIES!"

To all: "That's the extent of all the intellect on this site?"

Way to go, Saint Iaint for proving only one thing: you have chosen the right handle. You could have also chosen other more descriptive monikers, but I will steer clear of them.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2010, 03:47:41 PM »

St. Paul's epistles make it pretty clear that there was many an Ἰουδαῖος who did not become Christian.

As for the word "Jew": It's the proper word found in the dictionary (including Ancient Greek-English dictionaries), so your beef is really with the English language itself. Ultimately "Jew" comes from Iudaeum in Latin, so, in that sense, it is just a modernized form of "Judean."
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2010, 05:52:15 PM »

Quote from: Second Chance
"You are kidding right! What in the world possessed you to say, among other equally offensive things, the following?

To Father George: "I am not amused."

To Isa: "You are quite the slanderer."

To rakovsky: "I do hate LIES!"

To all: "That's the extent of all the intellect on this site?"

Way to go, Saint Iaint for proving only one thing: you have chosen the right handle. You could have also chosen other more descriptive monikers, but I will steer clear of them."

Second Chance,

Boy, you people get offended really  easily don't you?

I said what I said...

  • To Fr. George - because he was clearly mocking me... and I wasn't amused. He did not address the OP.

  • To Isa - because he insinuated that I am insane.

  • To Rakovsky - this one's self explanatory. I wasn't suggesting that he's a liar and he knows that. I'm saying that the word 'Jew' and its understanding today is a lie.

  • To all - Well this one I will admit was a little harsh... I apologize for saying that. I was just upset that people were focusing on me instead of what I wrote; they were answering me without really answering me.

As for this:

Quote
"Way to go, Saint Iaint for proving only one thing: you have chosen the right handle. You could have also chosen other more descriptive monikers, but I will steer clear of them."

... Well sir, now you've done the same thing!

"An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy."




Quote from: pensateomnia
"St. Paul's epistles make it pretty clear that there was many an Ἰουδαῖος who did not become Christian.

As for the word 'Jew': It's the proper word found in the dictionary (including Ancient Greek-English dictionaries), so your beef is really with the English language itself. Ultimately 'Jew' comes from Iudaeum in Latin, so, in that sense, it is just a modernized form of 'Judean.'"

Yes, I know there were many Judeans  who did not become Christian... I'm saying that there were also many Judeans  who were not Israelites at all; not Hebrews; not Judahites.

As to the ancient Greek-English dictionaries... How ancient? Modern English dates from certainly no earlier than the 15th century and the word 'Jew' first appeared in the 16th century.

Thank you for helping to confirm that 'Jew' in early CE usage meant Judean. Jesus and His Apostles however (except for the traitor Judas) were not Judeans - they were all Galileans... Jesus was from Nazareth and Nazareth was in Galilee; Northern Palestine, separated from Edomite controlled Judea by Samaria in central Palestine.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2010, 10:14:29 PM »

  • To Fr. George - because he was clearly mocking me... and I wasn't amused. He did not address the OP.
 

Well, I was mocking what you said, not you, per se.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2010, 01:31:04 PM »


You have to understand that St. Chrysostom argued using rhetoric - which was a specific method of his time that didn't quite have the same meaning as it does today. Read all eight and give him a chance... Don't reserve judgement; he was a man of his time!

This whole "Chrysostom was a product of his time" argument is really, really, tiring. The Crusaders were products of their time too, and yet we don't excuse them. (at least some Christians don't, see below)

I personally have read his 8 Homilies, multiple times. In fact I'm going through them yet again. I've also investigated the "context" of what he was saying, why he was saying it, and all the rest. And while I respect St. John Chrysostom, and do believe he is a legitimate saint, there is just no way in my mind, regardless of the historical context, or the style of argument used at the time, that can justify some of the things he said about Jews in those sermons. That doesn't mean I hate St. John, think he was evil, or a proto-Nazi, or anything of the sort. But as I've said before about him, he wore his sins upon his sleeve. (of which if I recall he even admitted as such at one point in those homilies). 

A lot of Christian apologists in light of stronger historical criticisms of the Church in recent years have increasingly taken on a weird mindset implying all the bad things we know about Church history really weren't that bad after all.  Like D'nesh D'souza for example, who basically argues no Christian, and certainly not the Catholic Church (he's Catholic) ever really did ANYTHING wrong, EVER. Oh yeah, he argues, there were those Crusaders, but eh...that's just the way the world was then. And then there were those pesky inquisitions . . . but "only" 2000 people died, (he conveniently forgets the tens of thousands who didn't die, but were brutally tortured, thrown into prison and the tens of thousands more who were exiled), or when he makes the Witch Hunts sound like it was limited to 17 women in the American colonies...yes he says, terrible, but 17 isn't so bad. He once again forgets that most conservative historians accept a number somewhere between 50-100 thousand being put to death, not including the many more tortured who did not die from their experiences.

Call it white washing Church history if you like, but we Orthodox have a tendency to do the same thing. I know, I used to do it myself, in part because I just didn't know a lot about the darker side of Church history. And it has been something that I've struggled to deal with. I actually think this dark side to our past should be required material in Catechism classes, because some of it is just so shocking, and is traumatic to deal with years later once one is within the Church. We tend to white wash in particularly with saints we hold in high regard as well. But I don't see this as anything but trying to rewrite history. By washing over St. John's attitude towards Jews, I think we do a diservice to what his life can actually teach us.

What I mean is, for me, I have more to learn from a saint who struggled with particular sins, hang ups, and prejudices than I do from someone who was "practically perfect in every way" like Mary Poppins. Smiley

I have little doubt St. John is a true saint. I also have little doubt he had a serious hang up and prejudice against Jews. Is that contrary to being a saint? Well it "could" be, but I don't think it is in the case of St. John Chrysostom. I have personal feelings about other recognized saints, where I truly doubt their sainthood (after all the ancient Church did not really have any form of formal canonization process, and I sometimes feel as though recognition of saints was more a popularlity contest than a recognition of holiness, but that's my personal feeling). But I don't think that of St. John Chrysostom. His life IMO really was saintly, but being a product of his time, he had a serious hang up about Jews. But just because he was a "product of his time" doesn't mean his "hang up" is all OK. It doesn't IMO excuse the attitude as either a  correct POV to have, or something we can just pretend doesn't matter. It just means we maybe shouldn't be as harsh on him as say someone who said those kinds of things today. But to me, it also means that we can learn from him, his sins, and his mistakes. Saints are not perfect people. That doesn't mean just anyone is a saint, no matter how vile of a human being, but I increasingly have less and less a problem with St. John's homilies, not because I don't think they are awful in places, because they are, but because by him wearing his sins in public, I can see my inner struggles a bit better perhaps. By that I mean I learn from saints holiness how TO live, but also can learn from their SINS how NOT to live. I suppose some people might see that as really negative but I don't. And is the whole "point" of having saints recognized as such to begin with.

Again that doesn't mean I think sainthood is just up for grabs by any person . . . . and the time and place they lived in certainly matters. But a true saint I feel would also be able to "rise above" the spirit of their time and exhibit holiness for all people, including those that they personally dislike. In many ways St. John succeeded in doing that very thing, but I firmly believe when it came to Jews, he failed. And yet I still think he is a saint. So it's all one big contradiction! Smiley But that's the way life is, and I am growing more comfortable in that as time goes on.


Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2010, 11:13:42 AM »

  • To Fr. George - because he was clearly mocking me... and I wasn't amused. He did not address the OP.
 

Well, I was mocking what you said, not you, per se.

Dear Fr. George,

Well... that makes me feel better!

My feelings were not hurt... my main point was that you did not address the OP.

And now that I mention it - neither did PeterTheAleut.



Quote from: NorthernPines
"This whole "Chrysostom was a product of his time" argument is really, really, tiring. The Crusaders were products of their time too, and yet we don't excuse them."

You don't understand. He was utilizing a specific method of argument called rhetoric... This type of discussion is no longer utilized because of today's stifling 'political-correctness'. The 'Jews' he spoke against also used the same methods against the Christians to voice their own points. Do you see the 'Jews' of today going out of their way to condemn the anti-Christian language which they used in their own rhetoric (and in fact still  use)?

St. John Chrysostom certainly wasn't 'anti-Semitic'... The race of the 'Jews' had nothing to do with it! So-called 'Anti-Semitism' is a modern construct. If you read other of Chrysostom's writings - you see prayers and praise for the 'Jews' that had come to become his brothers in Christ... If it was a race  issue (as today's 'Jews' would have you believe) - then how would their acceptance of the Christ negate that?

If I hated blacks as a race - then I wouldn't care if they were Christians or not... Even if they did become Christians, I would still hate them just because they were black. I would not pray for them to believe and become Christians... I wouldn't want them to be Christian... and I wouldn't praise them and accept them as my brethren if and when they did.

You mention the 'crusaders' in the same breath as the great St. John Chrysostom? They don't even belong in the same paragraph!

First of all - Chrysostom was Orthodox... while the 'crusaders' were heretics. Orthodox Christians never participated in 'the crusades' and in fact - the so-called 'crusaders' also sacked and robbed Constantinople.

Second - St. John Chrysostom never killed anyone... the 'crusaders' even murdered the Eastern Orthodox Christians as they pillaged their city! They proved (and they still prove to this day) that we may know them by their fruits.

The issue of the myth that is St. John Chrysostom's perceived (transposed) 'anti-Semitism' is spoken of at length in this episode of the 'Search The Scriptures' series by Presvytera and Dr. Jeannie Constantineau, Professor of Biblical Studies and Early Christianity at the University of San Diego:

Search The Scriptures - Was St. John Chrysostom An 'Anti-Semite'?

She explains it much better than I... Understanding the ancient concept and understanding of 'rhetoric' is the key. I've listened to the whole series - you should too!

Quote
"Call it white washing Church history if you like, but we Orthodox have a tendency to do the same thing."

You need to separate Orthodox Church history from the history of the post-Schism Roman 'Catholic' church. Since 1054 AD - they are totally distinct! Orthodox Christians need not harbor guilt for the deeds of the Latins.
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2010, 10:58:52 AM »


You don't understand. He was utilizing a specific method of argument called rhetoric...

So he really didn't mean any of what he said? He just used extreme language to make a point? Tell me, if you knew someone today, say a Catholic priest who used such phrases and vile accusations against a group of people, say Orthodox Christians, and called us swine, harlots, demons, and "worse than the irrational beasts" in a sermon, and then afterwards you were to go up to him and ask him, "hey, do you really believe that about us?" and he replied, "nah, I just use that sort of language to make a point that Catholics should remain Catholic!" wouldn't you think the priest had a serious problem? I cannot imagine ANYONE saying such absolutely divisive things and not actually mean it. I can bet that just about anyone would assume a person who did use extreme and divisive language like that, but did not feel that way was simply not in their right mind. (ie: mentally ill)

The 'defense' that St. John didn't really mean what he said is no defense at all and turns him into...well I'm not sure what exactly. He really loved Jews, but used harsh language just to get a point across? That to me mplies that he was either a hypocrite (in classical sense) or was just a mentally disturbed individual. Neither of which I think is actually the case. As I said I believe he was and is a saint, who lived a holy life, but certainly carried the prejudice of his time. Which sadly he did not rise above, as he did in many other areas. 


As for rhetoric, Wikipedia's extensive definition begins with this:

Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively. It involves three audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as the five canons of rhetoric: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic or dialectic, rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. From ancient Greece to the late 19th Century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.



I absolutely agree with you that according to that definition, St. John indeed was using rhetoric. He is one of the greatest rhetoricians in human history, no doubt. Rhetoric is indeed exagerrated language that plays on people's emotions to make a point.  But the idea that the message of the rhetoric used is not believed by the individual is a new one on me. To put it into a modern context, Christopher Hitchens is an atheist who uses extreme rhetoric to make his points about religion. He admits he uses extreme language and examples to make a point....but no one would take that to mean he really doesn't believe the message he is speaking.

I believe that the Church fathers must be taken on their own terms, which includes much good, insight, wisdom, but also includes some bad or weird things too.

Quote
The 'Jews' he spoke against also used the same methods against the Christians to voice their own points.

First, what is your evidence of that? Second, who cares? Smiley

Just because one group misbehaves, that means we too can them misbehave seeing as how they did it first? Not a very spiritually mature position to take IMO. And in fact I don't think that is what St. John Chrysostom was doing at all. He had legitimate concerns about Judaizing, and legitimate concerns about people attending Synogogue services instead of attending Church. But the reality is, his legit concerns and points were also influenced by his "hang ups" when it came to Jews. That's that. I don't really see the need to make anymore out of than it is. The tendency to try and "defend" these homilies at all costs is just the flip side of calling him a racist or a Nazi. Neither is correct, at least in my view and study of the issue.


Quote
Do you see the 'Jews' of today going out of their way to condemn the anti-Christian language which they used in their own rhetoric (and in fact still  use)?


Actually, yes! But then even if they didn't, so what? We're back to the "they called us names first" argument which is . . . just a bit immature.


Quote
St. John Chrysostom certainly wasn't 'anti-Semitic'... The race of the 'Jews' had nothing to do with it!

No, technically he wasn't anti-Semitic. Which is why I say he had "hang ups" about Jews, because it is inaccurate to say he was anti-Semitic...maybe proto anti-Semitic would be an historical way of saying it, but I don't think that is exactly right either. But mainly for technical reasons. First, there were and still are non Jewish Semitic peoples. And he clearly didn't hate Semitic Christians. But even using anti-Semitic in the modern sense, as hating the Jews as a race of people, of course he wasn't that either. Then again, NO ONE was anti-Semitic in the 5th century because the modern concepts of race didn't quite exist back then.

Quote
So-called 'Anti-Semitism' is a modern construct. If you read other of Chrysostom's writings - you see prayers and praise for the 'Jews' that had come to become his brothers in Christ...

You mean he was Christian enough to pray for fellow Christians? How nice! What about praying and loving one's enemies? You should seriously stop trying to defend him, as your "defense" of St. John actually makes him sound WORSE than he was, not better.

Quote
If it was a race  issue (as today's 'Jews' would have you believe) - then how would their acceptance of the Christ negate that?

In one sense, you're right! It's not about "race" for St. John. But it is about being "Jewish"....for 5th century Christians many fathers divided people up into 3 races...Jews, Pagans and "the Christian race"...so you are absolutely correct about race not being the issue. That doesn't make his feelings about Jews any better or any worse for that matter.


Quote
You mention the 'crusaders' in the same breath as the great St. John Chrysostom? They don't even belong in the same paragraph!

Who says? You?!

Quote

First of all - Chrysostom was Orthodox... while the 'crusaders' were heretics. Orthodox Christians never participated in 'the crusades' and in fact - the so-called 'crusaders' also sacked and robbed Constantinople.

Thanks for the history lesson! I think I already knew that though! Smiley


Quote
Second - St. John Chrysostom never killed anyone... the 'crusaders' even murdered the Eastern Orthodox Christians as they pillaged their city! They proved (and they still prove to this day) that we may know them by their fruits.

I used the crusaders as my example for 2 reasons...it's the most commonly thought of Christian atrocity, and I figured you'd respond by saying "oh that doesn't count cuz they weren't Orthodox!"

Well, now if you're open to a history lesson, I suggest you go the library, get some books and start reading! Smiley The Orthodox Church, while often claiming "we never had anything like the crusades" is NOT clean at all. For just a brief primer check out 'The Jesus Wars' by Phillip Jenkins. Then from there you can delve into the Church historians of the 4th-7th centuries and see that the Eastern Byzantine Church has participated in it's fair share of horrors and evils against not just those "evil pagans" but against other Christians. The horrors done by Eastern Christians, while technically "nothing like the crusades" are none the less awful to read about. Don't believe me, just ask the Copts?



Quote
She explains it much better than I... Understanding the ancient concept and understanding of 'rhetoric' is the key. I've listened to the whole series - you should too!

What makes you think I haven't? Because I don't agree with you? I've studied this issue quite extensively for the last year...I went from a defender of St. John, to thinking he was anti-semitic, to now seeing the truth lies somewhere in the middle.



Quote
You need to separate Orthodox Church history from the history of the post-Schism Roman 'Catholic' church. Since 1054 AD - they are totally distinct! Orthodox Christians need not harbor guilt for the deeds of the Latins.

With all due respect, you seem to be taking a mighty Fundamentalist world view for someone who according to their blog is not even Orthodox yet. If you want to get into the gory details of "Orthodox Church history" I can certainly do that, but I don't think it's a very spiritual endeavor and I'd rather just learn from those mistakes rather than dwell on them.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2010, 01:00:52 PM »

Iaint, you made a confrontational post about Jews as your first act on this forum, and got your language edited down on the second. It's not for lack of evidence that we find you obsessing over this issue. And frankly I think the forum world would be greatly improved if moderators the world over were less tolerant of this kind of behavior.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2010, 07:19:12 PM »

Iaint, you made a confrontational post about Jews as your first act on this forum, and got your language edited down on the second. It's not for lack of evidence that we find you obsessing over this issue. And frankly I think the forum world would be greatly improved if moderators the world over were less tolerant of this kind of behavior.


Actually my first post was a reply to a poster named '4Truth' who had raised the issue on the 'Are We Really Supposed To Avoid Non-Christians'  thread.

On my second post... yes my choice of wording was edited but that was a reference to Roman Catholics - not 'Jews'.

I did not realize that this was such a Protestant dominated, Pharisee loving, overly PC forum! The name of the forum is 'Orthodox Christianity.net' - not 'Overly Sensitive PC Ecumenist Central.net'!

Here's a bit of commentary from the first thread I posted on:

Quote from: TomS
"This is just an issue that constantly comes up and leads me to believe that Orthodoxy is becoming closer and closer to Protestantism every day. In the West, it will end up simply as a more "visual" and "pious" form of Protestantism.

Ecumenism is destroying the Church."

TomS said it better than I could! Was it you who got him banned? I've spoken to plenty of Orthodox Christians elsewhere... and they understand that there is a difference between the discussion of an anti-Christ 'religion' and so-called 'anti-Semitism'.

It appears very telling to me that there are Protestants here trying to police the discussion.

I didn't start this thread to discuss St. John Chrysostom's perceived (transposed) 'anti-Semitism'... or myself.

I've only just learned the definition of the term 'troll'... but it seems to me that you Keble fit the definition perfectly.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2010, 11:03:36 PM »

Iaint, you made a confrontational post about Jews as your first act on this forum, and got your language edited down on the second. It's not for lack of evidence that we find you obsessing over this issue. And frankly I think the forum world would be greatly improved if moderators the world over were less tolerant of this kind of behavior.


Actually my first post was a reply to a poster named '4Truth' who had raised the issue on the 'Are We Really Supposed To Avoid Non-Christians'  thread.

In case you didn't notice, the post to which you replied is almost six years old. As far as "raised" is concerned, it appears to me that you sought out and resurrected a subject that had been dead for a very long time.

Quote
I did not realize that this was such a Protestant dominated, Pharisee loving, overly PC forum! The name of the forum is 'Orthodox Christianity.net' - not 'Overly Sensitive PC Ecumenist Central.net'!

...which I take to mean "...I thought I was among family, so I assumed I didn't have to rein in my language or my behavior." Saying, in effect, that civility is only for Protestants is not exactly a positive advertisement for your faith.

Quote
Here's a bit of commentary from the first thread I posted on:

Quote from: TomS
"This is just an issue that constantly comes up and leads me to believe that Orthodoxy is becoming closer and closer to Protestantism every day. In the West, it will end up simply as a more "visual" and "pious" form of Protestantism.

Ecumenism is destroying the Church."

TomS said it better than I could! Was it you who got him banned?

LOL!!!!  laugh laugh laugh laugh

Pardon me a minute while I climb back in my chair...

If you had spent any much time looking at Tom's old posts, there is some chance that you would have recognized how completely laughable your accusatory question is. I imagine that anyone else who was around at the time is either snickering or rolling their eyes.



...and while I'm at it, is there any chance that you are are going to step up to defending your 9/11 claims?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 11:24:35 PM by Keble » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2010, 02:51:09 AM »

Quote from: Keble
"In case you didn't notice, the post to which you replied is almost six years old. As far as "raised" is concerned, it appears to me that you sought out and resurrected a subject that had been dead for a very long time."

Who cares how old it was? I read through a lot of threads when I got here... hoping I might learn a thing or two. I did not "seek out and resurrect" the thread... I came upon it and I wanted to say a word or two.

Is there some problem with replying to an older thread? If there is - then they should lock them after a certain period of dormancy. How is someone new to the forum (or new to computers & 'internet etiquette 'entirely) supposed to know? I didn't know.

Quote
"... which I take to mean '...I thought I was among family, so I assumed I didn't have to rein in my language or my behavior.' Saying, in effect, that civility is only for Protestants is not exactly a positive advertisement for your faith."

I don't see any problem with "my language or my behaviour"... There's a big difference between 'civility' and your PC feelgood nonsense. If you don't like the truth - that's your problem I guess.

Quote
"If you had spent any much time looking at Tom's old posts, there is some chance that you would have recognized how completely laughable your accusatory question is."

Yeah, well... I don't have as much time on my hands as you clearly do! And it was not an "accusatory question". It was a simple question. If I was being "accusatory" - I would have said, 'YOU got him banned didn't you Keble?!?'

You're going out of your way to bug me and seemingly trying to get the moderators to censor or ban me... TomS apparently thought along the same lines as me (at least with regard to the issue in question)... so why wouldn't you have tried to 'sic' them on him too? Aren't you the 'Protestant Police' around here? Ha ha!

Tell me Keble... are you really, really bored or what? Why don't you just take your Protestant, Pharisee loving nonsense and carry on? If you don't like my posts - THEN DON'T READ THEM! As soon as you see my 'avatar', just skip over it!

I don't read yours anymore! I replied to a thread you started once, and you were just rude to me - without even addressing what I said. That's called 'ad hominem'... and that's your forte it seems. Besides, I didn't come here to argue with Protestants... I've spent plenty of time on Evangelical websites arguing with Protestants and frankly - it was nothing but a waste of my time.

Quote
"...and while I'm at it, is there any chance that you are are going to step up to defending your 9/11 claims?"

I already replied to you about that! You said, "Waaah! I don't wanna look at your links!"... or some other whiny garbage. Then my posts were censored. Tell you what - I'll start a new thread in the politics section just for you (if I'm allowed).

But if you won't even look at the links that list off the reams and reams of evidence against the 'Jews' - then your mind is closed. If all you are going to do is cover your ears and go, 'La la la la la la la...' then I'm not going to waste any more of my time. Troll.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
 Where do I begin?  The combative tone of this post is enough to start a fire that we moderators would rather not have to fight and is certainly not a good way to engender good will toward you on this forum.  But that in itself, unless you already had a history of this kind of flaming, would not necessarily have been a violation of forum policy if you hadn't thrown in that one-word stinger at the end.  We do not tolerate posters calling each other trolls.

For resorting to such an ad hominem attack, and considering the general hostility that accompanies the attack, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 40 days.  If you continue to attack other posters like this, you will incur even harsher sanctions to include post moderation, muting, or banning.  If you think this warning unfair, feel free to appeal it via private message to Fr. George

- PeterTheAleut
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2010, 11:15:33 AM »

Seeing as how this discussion has turned into a volley of name calling and accusations I am temporarily locking this thread so we can all step back and take a deep breath, and the Moderators determine a proper course of action.

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator
Logged
Tags: Judeans Edomites Jews Judahites 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 57 queries.