Early Church Father and Antisemitism

[jmell]

I was wondering how common this is. In some searching around I found thes quotes by St. John Chrysostom

He wrote in his 4th Discourse, "I have said enough against those who say they are on our side, but are eager to follow the Jewish rites...it is against the Jews that I wish to draw up my battle... Jews are abandoned by God and for the crime of deicide, there is no expiation possible."

and

"the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it is also a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. No Jew adores God... Jews are inveterate murderers, possessed by the devil, their debauchery and drunkenness gives them the manners of the pig. They kill and maim one another..."

Thes are just and example, I was just wondering how common this was.

[sin_vladimirov]

How common?

In those days, probably VERY COMMON.
In days before and after those day, probably, also very common.

Not many Christians in the past saw Jews as friends. Not many things that Jews did in the past were friendly. Not much love in the past was between Jews and Christians.

Is that the situation today?
No! (As far as I am concerned, and Serbs in general, Jews are good people who got smashed by Nazis, same way the Serbs did)

Why? Well some of the reasons (in no particular order) are that we have moslems to worry about.
Jews do not prosecute Christians anymore. In the days of the Roman Empire (Pagan Rome) the Jews were the biggest murderers of Christians. (Not physically but they would accuse people of being Christian, that was enough). Jews do not cause us to die...

Also, I do not think that in HIS DAY St. John Chrysostom would have been wrong to not like jews alot.

He did use (and many other Fathers) "colorfull" language (very insulting); so did the jewish Rabbis of the time.

One thing to note, Christians in the East (Byzant)  DID NOT KILL JEWS. Never. But Jews did kill Christians in the east.
Funny thing is that in the west Jews did not kill Christians but Christians (Latins) did kill Jews.



Also compare:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx

[jmell]

Also, I do not think that in HIS DAY St. John Chrysostom would have been wrong to not like jews alot.

Why, what about turning the other cheek and loving one another. The whole "well they did it first, so I can do it back" thing seems far from Christian.

[sin_vladimirov]

Why, what about turning the other cheek and loving one another. The whole "well they did it first, so I can do it back" thing seems far from Christian.

Well, what do you want me to say?


O.K. I will give you different kind of answer, given that me being nice did not work.

Were fathers wrong to call Jews pigs?
No, they were not. Jews were biggest killers of Christians before moslems came. Why shouldn't the fathers call them pigs? We (Orthodox) never killed Jews, so we did not return as we could've. We just called them bad names. Wow!! that is so naughty, how dare we. They sell us into being killed, we call them pigs, and YOU are talking about other cheek.. Give me a break!

Now, maybe here is what we should've done! (Just an example)
I call the Moslems pigs, every single day, they killed more than half of my family; am I wrong to call them pigs?
Should I turn the OTHER CHEEK? 
No! I do not think so.
Excuse me, all those Serbs that turned the other cheek stayed without their head.
So, Moslems killed mine, I killed theirs..

Do Jews turn the other cheek with Arabs today? No! Every time one arab blows himself up, Israeli Army blows up the whole neighbourhood.

Funny standars you got. You can not turn the other cheek when someone does not agree with you in a public forum, but you have to persist, and you are talking about turning other cheeks when someone is killing you or selling you to be killed!!!




Do you like this kind of answer more?

[jmell]

Should I turn the OTHER CHEEK? 
No! I do not think so.
Excuse me, all those Serbs that turned the other cheek stayed without their head.
So, Moslems killed mine, I killed theirs..

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on
the right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Romans 12:19-21

19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
   "If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
      if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
   In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

[observer]

The heresy of Non-Resistance you are promoting was condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th Century.   Its perpertrator was Tolstoy who did not believe in the dvinity of Christ.  BTW anti-semitiism refers to language not people.  Also some feminist RC suggested that references to the evil Jews in the Holy
Week services should be removed... fortunately the Church ignored her.  I suspect that some Libs, even on this Forum, do not know the difference between ethnic Jews and Judaism.   I condemn Judaism as a false anti-God religion, but love my Jewish friends as people, as  I even like some Lib Orthodox!

[jmell]

The heresy of Non-Resistance?? When did Christ's teaching become heretical. When did the Church's teaching  begin to outweigh that of Christ?

[SaintShenouti]

I agree with brother Vladimirov.

Remember St. Paul, before his conversion as Saul, sought out Christians, and persecuted the church.

He later went on to found the church in Rome.

[observer]

I recommend you read Tolstoy's essay on Non-Resistance.  It has been condemned by most non-Orthodox Churches too.  Tolstoy was a pacifiist who had his estate surrounding by armed guards, trained to kill

[alexp4uni]

I agree with brother Vladimirov.

Remember St. Paul, before his conversion as Saul, sought out Christians, and persecuted the church.

He later went on to found the church in Rome.

He was a prominent Pharisee and well known among radical Jews, but his conversion then showed the utmost respect for Jews. Paul told the Corinthians that Christ died for the Jews, and for all men. The Gospel had shown that the New Covenant was offered to the Jews first. In Matthew 10, Jesus sent the disciples to preach the Gospel only to the nation of Israel. Only after the Jewish leadership rejected Christ was the Great Commission expanded to include all nations.

 
Moving onto the Church Fathers, I do want to state S.Shen that after reading the threads of Tomos of Pope Leo in the other post in the Faith Section. When you responded as a Oriental in defense against the council and the Easterns defending their side for St. Leo. It's history that Leo of Rome was a murderer that it is what the Church of Alexandria is accusing of, which is heresy. But both churches recognize St. Chrysostom, who might have been an anti-Semite from this thread and the two quotes. Well it's not blurred here then, St. Chrysostom is then a hypocrite yet both churches venerate him a saint. Would he have then been a heretic too?

[sin_vladimirov]

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on
the right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Romans 12:19-21

19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
   "If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
      if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
   In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And since when does this have to do anything with the idea of defending yourself?

Are you REALLY trying to say that if someone comes and cuts your mothers head of, rapes your sister, sticks your father on a stake, and the proceeds to cut your head off with a very blunt knife you are going to let him do it?



I mean, if you are so good how come you keep answering these posts, why don't you let me, being evil, win?
Why do you have to continue to present your case?
Why DON'T YOU TURN THE OTHER CHEEK?

Or is this oppinion of yours purely academic, and you just say so because you like saying cute things?


When our Lord and St. Paul said those things, according to the teaching of the Church, though which we understand what is given to us (Apostolic Tradition, being written or said), they did not mean passive standing whilst we are being attacked.
Christians HAVE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES,
we have a right to support the State that Defend us.
We have a right to go to war to defend our homes.

In doing so we can not be worse and we have to still pray for those who hate us (as we have always done so).
True Christian will certainly defend himself, never by lying but by stating the truth.
True Christian will support his country, as long as this country is not against God.
True Christian will defend his family.
True Christian will defend himself.

The words you have quoted are are nothing to do with our job of protecting our faith and our family, friends or country.

You can not be a sectarian (unless you ARE a sectarian or a heretic or a schismatic) and use the Scripture as a sectarian.
The Scripture is given by the Church, through the Church, for the Church and in the Church.
And only as it is given, we can understand it as the Church HAS ALWAYS understood it, as it was understood BY ALL and EVERYWHERE.
This is catholicity of oppinion of a believer, to understand the faith as understood ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE.

Only sectarians (heretics, schismatics) take one verse and hang on it all of their views. Do not forget, all of the heretics and heterodox use the very same Scripture to support their heresy and heterodoxy.

So, yes turn the other cheek, do not make things worse because of your pride and your arrogance or hate.
Feed the ones that hate you, give them shelter, food.. pray for them, bandage their wounds... love them: but this DOES NOT MEAN stand there with your head tilted to the side so they can slap you other cheek when they are finished cutting your head off!.

ONLY in Church we can fully understand what is being said.
Our Lord did not come to bring peace but war, and it will just get worse...


Of course, if you are a sectarian, say so...

[sin_vladimirov]

He was a prominent Pharisee and well known among radical Jews, but his conversion then showed the utmost respect for Jews. Paul told the Corinthians that Christ died for the Jews, and for all men. The Gospel had shown that the New Covenant was offered to the Jews first. In Matthew 10, Jesus sent the disciples to preach the Gospel only to the nation of Israel. Only after the Jewish leadership rejected Christ was the Great Commission expanded to include all nations.

I have a great problem accepting this view and interpretation of the Scripture. Although not wrong in principle this statement has a main flaw. Using words ONLY AFTER, you are suggesting that because Jews did not accept it, gentiles were included. This is a double wrong! Firstly, many Jews did accept the Lord, and secondly God is GOD of ALL not just of Jews. I think that if one reads St. Paul this message simply Jumps Out. I agree that Gospel was given First to the Jews, but I can not agree that BECAUSE JEWS DENIED IT, Gentiles were given it. This is a very dangerous road I would not like to follow. You can not confuse ONE PERIOD OF TIME with Eternity. Ss. Adam and Eve were not Jews.  God did not create Jews and that we are some bastards who came from Mars. This view is not Orthodox and I suggest (If you are Orthodox) you adjust your view to the view of the Church.

Moving onto the Church Fathers, I do want to state S.Shen that after reading the threads of Tomos of Pope Leo in the other post in the Faith Section. When you responded as a Oriental in defense against the council and the Easterns defending their side for St. Leo. It's history that Leo of Rome was a murderer that it is what the Church of Alexandria is accusing of, which is heresy. But both churches recognize St. Chrysostom, who might have been an anti-Semite from this thread and the two quotes. Well it's not blurred here then, St. Chrysostom is then a hypocrite yet both churches venerate him a saint. Would he have then been a heretic too?

I for one do not think that term Anti-Semite is applicable in period of St. John Chrysostom. You can not use modern standards and views to explain antiquity.

Surely, this must be apparent in the light of what is going on in the world today (gay priests, women priest to mention just a few).
Anti-Semite is a modern term.
If you accuse Fathers of that, why not accuse God of genocide?

Where will be the end of accusing the people of the past for things they did and were not aware that some people in 1500 years will consider them naughty.

Imagine what will be said in 1500 years about us. Are we really so good today? Are we so nice? Letting people starve to death and calling it mercy. Letting babies being killed because their mothers could not keep their legs together... How come are we so good? St. John did not exterminate 6.000.000 Jews.

So, please, lets not be idiots.

[choirfiend]

"letting babies be killed because their fathers could not keep their pants on."
How about that one?

Come on, guys, don't be so ridiculous.

Are we supposed to forgive and even pray for our enemies, those who have killed, maimed, raped, destroyed, and wounded our hearts as well as our loved ones? Yes, we are. God forgives and loves us though we are not worthy, and so we are to love those who are unworthy of it.

Can I judge someone who has been through such things and cannot find it within themselves to forgive? No.

But try asking Christ to help you forgive. You must want to forgive before forgiveness is even possible. If you do not want to forgive, it will never happen and the devil will enjoy himself immensely.

[sin_vladimirov]

"letting babies be killed because their fathers could not keep their pants on."
How about that one?

Hmmm..

If she was not so happy to oblige, he would be a rapist.
 

[choirfiend]

The woman would have a hard time getting pregnant on her own....Just ask the Theotokos, she's the only one who ever managed it. It takes two to have a child, and making statements such as the ones you continue to make are offensive and demonstrate a very sick mindset.

[sin_vladimirov]

The woman would have a hard time getting pregnant on her own....Just ask the Theotokos, she's the only one who ever managed it. It takes two to have a child, and making statements such as the ones you continue to make are offensive and demonstrate a very sick mindset.

Wow, "a very sick mindset"!

Good bye.

[choirfiend]

So long, farewell, auf wiedersen goodnight! Adieu, Adieu, to you and you and you!

[sin_vladimirov]

It is amazing how as soon as we say something that does not belong to the "American Female view", we are immediately SICK or Retarded or plainly stupid.

I am at pains to realize why is what I said showing of "a very sick mindset".

Please correct me!

Did I say that it takes one to become pregnant?

I asked how will we be judged about killing babies because their mothers could not keep their legs together. And then sister immediately goes to say that it is men who are guilty of it. Then I say that if woman did not want it, and man made her, that would be a rape. And now I am a person with "a very sick mindset".

I am sorry, it is called THE LAW!

Abortion is ultimately a woman's decision. It takes two for becoming pregnant, also it takes two for abortion, but I have not heard of any of those doctors chasing pregnant ladies so that they canforce them to perform abortion. Also, the people who chase women to force them to fall pregnant have their name.

So, if you excuse me, being 22y.o and a female does not give you any right to call anyone sick, especially if that is me! 

Abortion as well as care for her body is "office of the woman".
Transporting guilt on a male sex for it is just hiding from responsibilities.

Not becoming pregnant is woman's job.
She has avenue to say NO.
If a man does not take that, that is the job for the Police and Law.

I do not see men as responsible for abortion.

Both sexes are guilty for having sex before marriage (if that is the case), or not sustaining the fast (if that is the case) but abortion is ultimately female decision.

If she is forced to abort, that is also job for the Police.

Now, I think that you not agreeing with me, are showing a very sick attitude.

[choirfiend]

So, if you excuse me, being 22y.o and a female does not give you any right to call anyone sick, especially if that is me!  Grin


Now THAT's disturbing. Once again, as I already addressed through private messaging, I never called you sick. And that's enough of that!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Early Church Father and Antisemitism