OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 05:51:28 PM *
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 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Saint Nikolaj Velimirovic  (Read 17591 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« on: July 01, 2005, 06:28:13 PM »

Many have called me anti-semitic, ignorant, hateful, an espouser of islamic or fascist ideologies, a conspiracy theorist etc
This does not bother me.  However when certain posters started claiming that my beliefs are un-Christian then I have to respond very seriously to this. 
Previously to this I posted an interview with the Greek monk Paisos.  Since certain posters questioned the credibility of the source and tried to divert the topic in hand in every possible direction, I have decided this time that the source shall be beyond refutation.  The following article is not from an interview, or hearsay, it is from the complete published works of the greatest Serbian Saint since Saint Sava.  This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the SOC.  Indeed I will not give any initial commentary to the text until people respond.  Unfortunately, a complete English translation of all his works does not exist on the internet.  In any case it is clearly not possible to debate them in their entirety.  I will simply give some quotes that I think are relevant in refuting the claim that my 'conspiratorial' beliefs are un-Christian.  For those that were telling me that Patriarch Pavle would condemn my thoughts, remember that this Saint was canonised by this very Patriarch.  This first citation is from 'Reci Srpskom Narodu kroz Tamnicki Prozor'  (Words to the Serbian nation through the dungeon window).

"... During the course of ages, they who crucified the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, made Europe into the chief battle ground for the devil and against God. And it is today the chief battle-ground of the Jews and of the devil the father of the Jews... Europe does not know this, and here lies all the desperation of its fate, the entire dark tragedy of its peoples. Above all it does not know whom it belongs to. It knows nothing but that which the Jews have ordered it to believe. It can judge of the value of nothing until the Jews have set up their balance for the measurement of value. Its politicians like sleepwalkers in their delirium talk of the equality (ignorance) of all beliefs and non-beliefs, that is, that which the Jews want and desire, because it is necessary for them to have legal equality with Christians, so that they can then drive out Christianity and have Christianity made non-believers, and place their foot on their necks.

All the modern catch-words of Europe have been composed by the Jews who crucified Christ, including democracy, and strikes, and socialism, and atheism and the toleration of all religions, and pacifism and universal revolution and capitalism and communism.

All these are the invention of Jews, or of the devil, the father of the Jews. But the wonder is that the Europeans, baptized and anointed, should have surrendered so totally to the Jews that they think with Jewish heads, accept Jewish programmes, adopt Jewish anti-Christianity, receive Jewish lies as truth, welcome Jewish catch-words as their own, walk along the Jewish road and serve Jewish aims. This is the thing to wonder at in our time, and nothing else in the world.

Everything else is less important or unimportant. But the most important thing is how Christian Europe managed to become the serving maid of the Jews... Think on these things, brother Serbs..."
 
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2005, 07:49:56 PM »

And here is what our holy Scriptures say:

ROMANS Chapter 11:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Know ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? “I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.”
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.  And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:  If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 10:32
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2005, 09:06:54 PM »

I am sorry, SP I can not follow you there. I love St. Nikolaj very much, for a lot of reasons.
But,  not for his view and word about Jews.

As far as Anti-Jewish tendency (and here I am talking about generalization and total antisemitism and not about Anti-Zionism which is -for me- representative of militant Judeism) St. Nikolaj is one of the worse in the history of the Orthodox Church, certainly the worse one I know of in Serbian Orthodox Church.

Logged

Lord have mercy.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,246


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2005, 09:35:50 PM »

In accordance with what the Fathers taught, and especially St. Photius (cf Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 67-72), I must reject any teaching like the one quoted above, whether it be from Joe Layman, my patron saint Justin Popovich, my patron's spiritual Father St. Nikolai, or anyone else. Even the greatest of saints are wrong sometimes. It is our duty to "cover our Father's nakedness" and hide their errors like good sons, not to hold to those errors and trumpet them obstinately.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 09:37:35 PM by Paradosis » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2005, 09:52:57 PM »

In accordance with what the Fathers taught, and especially St. Photius (cf Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 67-72), I must reject any teaching like the one quoted above, whether it be from Joe Layman, my patron saint Justin Popovich, my patron's spiritual Father St. Nikolai, or anyone else. Even the greatest of saints are wrong sometimes. It is our duty to "cover our Father's nakedness" and hide their errors like good sons, not to hold to those errors and trumpet them obstinately.


Very true.
Well said.
Logged

Lord have mercy.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2005, 06:51:29 AM »

I am sorry, SP I can not follow you there. I love St. Nikolaj very much, for a lot of reasons.
But,ÂÂ  not for his view and word about Jews.
As far as Anti-Jewish tendency (and here I am talking about generalization and total antisemitism and not about Anti-Zionism which is -for me- representative of militant Judeism)
I understand.  I thought that it might give the wrong impression since 'jew' is always used instead of 'zionist'.  I am sure when he says jew he is indeed referring to those representative of militant Judaism, but also to atheists.  That is why I think he uses the word 'jew'.  I accept that this is still a generalization, but he clearly believes in collective responsibility.

St. Nikolaj is one of the worse in the history of the Orthodox Church, certainly the worse one I know of in Serbian Orthodox Church.
Brother if you read his works, he has just as harsh words for the Serbian people.  People don't seem to have a problem with that though.

Since I can find barely any of his works on the internet, I'll translate what I can out of that which I think is relevant to the discussion.  Anyone who questions my translation can check with a Serb who has the book (the same one as before).
Nations must take a collective responsibility.  We live in a society which is interwoven, if the whole society becomes corrupt, then the whole society must take the blame.  The following extract shows that to nobody does this apply to more than the Serbian people, it is not just the Jews who are criticised by Saint Nikolaj Velimirovic.

The greatest sons of a nation serve as an example to the nation.  But they are not just examples, they are also the protectors of the nation.  But they are not just protectors, they are also the accusers of the nation.  Who was Saint Sava?  He was the most beatiful example to the Serbian people, the fiery defender of the Serbian people, but also the accuser of the Serbian people before God.
Who would have thought this?  In fact this is perfectly natural, that the person that gave rise to our spiritual renewal, has the right to accuse us.  When the Jews were already plotting against Christ, the Saviour said: 'Don't think that I will denounce you to God; there is another that will accuse you, Moses, who you look up to.' /John 5, 45/  In this way witness was borne on evil doers by those that had seen the heavenly world, just like the earthly one.  ......... You ask for what would Saint Sava accuse you before God?  Truly there are two or three things for which he could accuse us.
First, he could accuse us of being weak and for kneeling down to European idolatry. (Reference to the acceptance among Serbs of western secular civilization instead of our Orthodox faith.)
...Second, he could accuse us because our leaders gave more respect to Muhammed and the Pope than to him. (Reference to a time inbetween the world wars, I think Islam and Catholicism were given greater rights in Yugoslav schools.)
You ask for what would Saint Sava accuse you before God?  Truly there are five or ten things for which he could accuse us.  Firstly for schools without faith; secondly for politics without respect; thirdly for an army without a unity of spirit; fourthly for marriages without faithfullness, and so on.
Are you still asking why our Saint Sava could accuse us before God?  Truly, because of ten or twenty things he could accuse us.  Because of unmarried and self-obssessed middle aged people; because of weak minded youth; because of souless selfish people, because of greedy bachelors without children; because of impurity of the soul; because of dirty tongues; because of blasphemy; because of disrespect to parents; because of laughing at teachers; because of competition in outwitting rather than helping brothers; and because of the statues we did and didn't put up infront of our parliament; and because we did not put a cross on the memorial to the unknown hero on Avala.
And for many more of our sins and crazy deeds Saint Sava can accuse us before God.

Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2005, 06:57:31 AM »

In accordance with what the Fathers taught, and especially St. Photius (cf Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 67-72), I must reject any teaching like the one quoted above, whether it be from Joe Layman, my patron saint Justin Popovich, my patron's spiritual Father St. Nikolai, or anyone else. Even the greatest of saints are wrong sometimes. It is our duty to "cover our Father's nakedness" and hide their errors like good sons, not to hold to those errors and trumpet them obstinately.
I think it is the height of arrogance to believe that we know best and can cover whatever part of 'our Father's nakedness' doesn't suit us.  Who are we to decide that they are in error.  I do agree with you that they are not infallible though.
Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2005, 09:11:13 AM »

Here is another extract.  In his vision and hopes for the Serbian nation, nowhere does he hope for violence or hate.  Just as he chastises the Serbian nation for their sins, he points out the sins of others who must also be accountable, such as the Jews.  It is only in this day and age when people think individualistically that people think it is wrong for nations to take responsibility togther.  They like to think of themselves as independant to the rest of society.  This is what has brought the problems we have in society today. The Jews are not innocent victims and bystanders in history, just as many other nations have sinned, including the Serbian one.  Yet it is only taboo to criticise Jews?  Anyway here is my translation of another extract: 


There is an end and limit to everything, other than Gods mercy.  This was revealed in the history of the obstinate nation of Israel.  The depths of the sea can be measured but the pain God feels for his creation cannot be measured….
God waits and waits.  But what does he wait for?  Not for one man that will show the path to all the nations and who will give them laws that will lead to salvation.  God does not wait for this.  This has already been.  The Messiah has appeared and shown the path and law of God.  The nations cannot expect another Messiah.  Therefore God is not waiting for another Messiah, or a genius statesman, or military leader or wise man.  This has all been, and it is all unnecessary for the future of mankind, for the happiness of the human race.
God, at this time, is waiting for one nation.  Not one man, but one whole nation who would with their whole heart give themselves up to God and serve him alone.  God is not waiting for a man as tall as the Himalayas, to lead and save humanity.  Only idiots and non-Christians expect this.  God awaits one nation who would kneel before him like an ant in front of a human, so that that nation would serve as an example to all other nations in the service of love; the light of truth and as an example of purity.
In our time everything is in inter-related, we are joined in societies. Nations look to other nations….
Does the Serbian nation want to satisfy God?  The holy prophet Isiah wrote of his vision of God on a high throne, and he heard a voice: ‘who will I send? Who will answer the call?’ Isiah answered: ‘Here I am, send me’. /Is. 6, 8/.
Today God needs not one man, but one nation.  And he again puts forward the same question: Who shall I send?  Who will answer the call?
Oh Serbian nation, do you have the courage to answer as the great Isiah did: Here I am, send me Lord?
You are up to this, only you among all nations, only if you decide.  Your cross-shaped banners urge you to this.  Your cross-bearing general urge you to this.  Your Golgotha past urges you to this.  All the depths of your suffering and all the heights of your visions urge you to this mission.  All your Saints and heroes, unusual and unique to all others, are blessing you on this path.  Your battlefields and your millions of casualties in youth and children give you the inspiration for this task.  Do you have the courage, most courageous of nations, to answer the call and say: Here I am God, send me?
God bless you if you are courageous enough to say this and to accept it.  This would be in the spirit of your whole past which is in the path of Christ and freedom.  And it is necessary to the nations of this earth like bread, water and air.  This is a hard task, you will say? Well is there any other nation which is more than you schooled and tested in suffering?
This mission is for a big nation you will say.  Do not speak like this.  It is the big nations who have ruined everything, who have fallen from Christ and who have desecrated all other nations on earth.  They cannot in their weakness serve as an example for anybody.  We need an example of health and the true life, and the light of eternal truth.  There is a dark foreboding for the masses who are without health, without the true life, without the light, without the truth, without a vision, without aspiration to heaven and without love.  But in everything else they are rich….
But we are also infected with the same illness; How will we therefore provide an example of health and spiritual fullness?  It is easy to answer this:  Truly, we Serbs are also infected; but to us, that which to them is illness of the lungs, heart and mind, is to us only skin-deep.  Return to your spiritual spas and you will be healed.  The first of these, and the most holy is Hilandar, second Studenica, then Zica, then Sopocani and Gracanica and so on.  Oh simple Christian nation, agricultural and hard working, your spiritual spas still live, and you are hard pressed to find anything better.  And your national church still lives.  Wash yourself three times and you will be healthy: First in your heroic historic martyrdom of your grandfathers and great grandfathers; Second in the simple but brave and God-fearing people, and third in your miraculous national Church.  And you will be totally healthy.  Then you will be able with fear and trembling to kneel before almighty God and with inner peace say:  Here I am Lord, send me! Let the Holy mother of God and your patron Saint support you in wisdom, strength and unity. Amen.
Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2005, 09:14:45 AM »

And here is what our holy Scriptures say:
This Saint gave his whole life up to the holy Scriptures.  Forgive me if I value his interpretation above yours, an anonymous person on the internet.
Logged

Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2005, 09:27:42 AM »

Peace to all...

Serbian Patriot, I am confused, now...

I don't see that that any "interpretation" was offered from the quoted Pauline text [and other Biblical texts quoted], in which case a saint's interpretation might be considered more authoratative by way of personal holiness of life and communion with God, but just a direct qotation from the Holy Scriptures ...

??

... perhaps you could clarify?

« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 09:43:19 AM by Rustaveli » Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2005, 09:32:35 AM »

SP, I do know that St. Nikolaj wrote even more against Bogobornih Srba then Bogobornih Jevreja* and indeed he did that very often. There was not many children that made him happy.

But, I do not find that clear distinction between ordinary Jews and Militant Zionists that is needed to be presented by him for us small-minded, that tend to take things and push them to the limit. It is not just the oppinion of St. Nikolaj that I am opposed to as is presented (I would even go to say that if t was placed properly and clearly into the context of Militant Zionism, I really do not I would have any problems with that kind of address).

The problem also is what today's Serbs get out of his word.
Today's Serbs are very ready to accuse everyone and all for everything. To us everyone is guilty just not us. I am sure that in many many cases others are guilty, but in our atheistic attitude and lack of Svetosavlja in all aspects of our existence as a Society no-one is at fault but us.


So, I do not think that he wrote wisely in placing objects without clear distinction.

When it comes to his word about Bogobornim Srbima, I think that no one can have any problems with that, as St. Nikolaj was a Serb. Every Serb has a right to criticise Serbs, time will prove whether that criticism is right or wrong. But for a non Jew, St. Nikolaj's rhetoric is rather strong, don't you think? Especially for this kind of forum. If here were all Serbs we could argue without anyone being offended, but this forum is not the place to present those more sensitive views.

I agree with you on many a thing being a Serb, but also as a Jew I do have a need to look into what St. Nikolaj wrote with some sense of caution. I think, that the most questionable writings of this great person came during the last days in Dachau. Now, I am not sure, but there were many that came out of Conc. Lagers that did "develop" sense of antisemitism, as much as this seems illogical.











*Bogoborni (Serbian for God-fighting, Anti-God, God-opposing)
« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 09:38:21 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2005, 09:51:08 AM »

Peace to all...

Serbian Patriot, I am confused, now...

I don't see that that any "interpretation" was offered from the quoted Pauline text, in which case a saint's interpretation might be considered more authoratative by way of personal holiness of life and communion with God, but just a direct qotation from the Holy Scriptures ...
??
... perhaps you could clarify?
Good point.  Let me clarify. Since I posted the writings of Saint Nikolaj Velimirovic, if someone wants to say that they contradict the scriptures, they have to do more than just post elements of the scriptures, or even post them and interpret them themselves.  Personal interpretation of scripture by ordinary people means nothing to me.  If it did, I would be a protestant advocate of sola scriptura.  One quote I remember of this Saint is that he said he gave up his whole life to the study of the scriptures.  You can then understand why someone posting an element of the scriptures does not change anything for me.  I could myself try and interprate the scriptures in a way that supports the view of this Saint, but it can be taken to mean many things depending on what you want to believe.  Therefore I would avoid all reference to the scripture that involves my or anyone elses personl interpretation.  I will not question the validity of what was written by this Saint unless it contradicts reason, and/or the views of the Church, including the Patriarch and Holy Synod.  They have not only NOT denounced his works, but they concluded before they canonised him that his views were consistent with that of traditional church teachings.  That for me is the end of the story.  No personal biblical interpretations can change that.
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2005, 09:55:02 AM »

if someone wants to say that they contradict the scriptures, they have to do more than just post elements of the scriptures, or even post them and interpret them themselves.  Personal interpretation of scripture by ordinary people means nothing to me.  ...... No personal biblical interpretations can change that.

No personal interpretation was offered. I simply quoted the Scriptures, and for some peculiar reason, you object to this....I wonder why?

"Facts are meaningless- They can be used to prove anything."
« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 10:14:52 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2005, 10:19:08 AM »

SP, I do know that St. Nikolaj wrote even more against Bogobornih Srba then Bogobornih Jevreja* and indeed he did that very often. There was not many children that made him happy.

But, I do not find that clear distinction between ordinary Jews and Militant Zionists that is needed to be presented by him for us small-minded, that tend to take things and push them to the limit. It is not just the oppinion of St. Nikolaj that I am opposed to as is presented (I would even go to say that if t was placed properly and clearly into the context of Militant Zionism, I really do not I would have any problems with that kind of address).
Quote
Thats what Im trying to say though.  The reason he doesn't use the word zionist is because he is also referring to those atheistic jews that have no interest in it.  He has labelled these two groups together as jews.  Generalisation you might say, but historically these two groups have in his eyes contributed to many detrimental events to Christianity.  Clearly he thinks that a large enough portion of them contributed to the downfall of Christianity that he could label them as jewish, rather than completely unrelated individuals who just happened to work together.

The problem also is what today's Serbs get out of his word.
Today's Serbs are very ready to accuse everyone and all for everything. To us everyone is guilty just not us.
I agree.  But on the other side you have the Serbs that find everyone else innocent and look down upon their fellow Serbs as the causes of all our problems.  I know Serbs that think that we were to blame for the 1990 wars, and that the US had our best interests at heart.  We must be careful to be niether arrogant or act superior and to accept that we have sinned, but also to recognise external or internal enemies that have also helped bring about the current situation.
 
I am sure that in many many cases others are guilty, but in our atheistic attitude and lack of Svetosavlja in all aspects of our existence as a Society no-one is at fault but us.
Indeed, for our spiritual fall noone can be to blame but us. ÂÂ

So, I do not think that he wrote wisely in placing objects without clear distinction.
I think if all his writings are read in their entirety the distinction will be clearer.

When it comes to his word about Bogobornim Srbima, I think that no one can have any problems with that, as St. Nikolaj was a Serb. Every Serb has a right to criticise Serbs, time will prove whether that criticism is right or wrong. But for a non Jew, St. Nikolaj's rhetoric is rather strong, don't you think?
I don't think that as a Serb he only has a right to criticise Serbs.  Furthermore if there are percieved enemies, it becomes not just a right but a duty to make this apparent.  His rhetoric is strong, but I cannot just from that conclude that it is unjustified.

Especially for this kind of forum. If here were all Serbs we could argue without anyone being offended, but this forum is not the place to present those more sensitive views.
Yes I do see that.  It it is not the primary duty of an Orthodox Christian to keep talking about percieved enemies, or he will forget about himself.  However when I posted the article about the monk Paisos it was others that forced me to defend this position in particular.  I never drew any particular attention to any part of the article where the zionists were mentioned.  So I understand that many could get the wrong idea, but that is indeed why i am trying to clarify and justify what I post.  I cannot as a rational human being accept that certain topics are beyond discussion, if I believe them to be true. ÂÂ

I agree with you on many a thing being a Serb, but also as a Jew I do have a need to look into what St. Nikolaj wrote with some sense of caution. I think, that the most questionable writings of this great person came during the last days in Dachau. Now, I am not sure, but there were many that came out of Conc. Lagers that did "develop" sense of antisemitism, as much as this seems illogical.
True, but St. Nikolajs views are consistent from start to finish, including from well before he was in Dachau, to long after he left.  By all means approach with caution, but don't let this stop you reading it at all, as has been the case with some that run a mile when they see the word zionist or jew.
Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2005, 10:21:52 AM »

No personal interpretation was offered. I simply quoted the Scriptures, and for some peculiar reason, you object to this....I wonder why?
[
By quoting the scriptures, someone still has to interpret them in order for them to be of any use. 
Logged

jmell
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142

OC.net


« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2005, 11:18:28 AM »

Quote
18 February 2004, Volume  6, Number  4

CANONIZING THE 'PROPHET' OF ANTI-SEMITISM: THE APOTHEOSIS OF BISHOP NIKOLAJ VELIMIROVIC AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF RELIGIOUS ANTI-SEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN SOCIETY (Part 1)*

By Jovan Byford

On 19 May 2003, the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church announced its "unanimous and undisputed decision" to "include the name of Nikolaj (Velimirovic), Bishop of Ohrid and Zica, in the calendar of saints of the holy [Serbian] Orthodox Church." The announcement stated that, in canonizing Bishop Velimirovic, the council "solemnly confirmed the widespread belief in his sanctity which exists not only within the Serbian Church but throughout the Orthodox World" (Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 2003). The magnitude of the importance attributed to the new saint was reflected in the decision to allocate two days in the church calendar to his veneration: 18 March, the day of Velimirovic's death in exile in the United States in 1956; and 3 May, the day in 1991 when his remains were brought back to Serbia and laid to rest in his native village of Lelic.

The formal canonization ceremony was held at the Temple of Saint Sava in central Belgrade only five days after the initial announcement. The special liturgy was officiated by Patriarch Pavle of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the presence of all 28 Serbian bishops and several thousand faithful. The sacred remains (mosti) of the new saint were transported to Belgrade especially for this occasion and were displayed in an open casket to be worshipped by members of the public.

The inclusion of the name of Nikolaj Velimirovic (1881-1956) in the diptych of Serbian saints revived the long-standing public debate surrounding the merits of the bishop's contribution to Orthodox Christianity and to Serbian culture as a whole. Underpinning the debate is the fact that Serbia's new national saint is a controversial historical figure. As critics on the liberal left frequently point out, Velimirovic was one of the principal ideologues of 1930s Serbian fascism, whose clerical nationalist, antimodernist, and anti-Semitic religious writings continue to inspire the forces of the Christian right in present-day Serbian society (Popov, 1993; Djordjevic 1996, 2003; Byford and Billig, 2001; Byford, 2002, 2003).

In spite of the controversy surrounding his life and work, a substantial proportion of Orthodox Serbs regard Velimirovic as one of the most important national religious figures since medieval times. Velimirovic's books are widely available in Serbia's bookshops and are said to have sold over 1 million copies over the past 10 years. Also, a number of representatives of Serbia's mainstream political establishment, including a former president of Yugoslavia and one of Serbia's most popular politicians, Vojislav Kostunica, have publicly expressed a positive opinion of Velimirovic's religious philosophy (e.g., Kostunica, 2003).

A recent study of representations of Bishop Nikolaj in contemporary Serbian culture has demonstrated that the widespread apotheosis of Nikolaj Velimirovic -- in the face of ongoing controversy -- entails a significant amount of social forgetting. In popular representations of Velimirovic's life and work, contentious elements of his biography are routinely repressed and replaced with more favorable and selective interpretations that conceal the Bishop's anti-Semitic leanings (Byford, 2004). In that sense, the popular adulation of the bishop can be said to continue in spite of, rather than because of, his contentious views.

The dynamic of repression evident in public discourse is absent from right-wing extremist and anti-Semitic literature where Bishop Nikolaj's controversial writings are explicitly invoked to support clerical-nationalist, neofascist, and anti-Semitic ideological claims (Djurdjevic, 1997, 2002; Krstic, 2002). For this reason, in contemporary Serbia the authority of Nikolaj Velimirovic can be said to represent the meeting point between mainstream Orthodox culture, which represses and seeks to downplay his controversial political orientation, and the exponents of the Christian right, whose claim to legitimacy is based precisely on the "forgotten" aspects of the Bishop's literary output. Importantly however, the popularity of Nikolaj Velimirovic, which stretches across the political spectrum, blurs the boundaries between the mainstream and the extreme in Serbian religious discourse. The continuing veneration of Nikolaj Velimirovic and the reluctance by church authorities to address the controversy surrounding his writings has been shown to implicitly -- and for the most part inadvertently -- legitimize political extremism and facilitate the promulgation of anti-Jewish prejudice in contemporary Serbia (Byford, 2002, 2004).

The present paper proposes to examine this dynamic further, using as an example the campaign for Velimirovic's canonization. In considering in more detail the construction of the bishop's sanctity over the past 15 years or so, it will be suggested that, while the campaign for canonization consistently overlooked Velimirovic's anti-Semitism, certain constructions of the new saint's holiness are intrinsically tied to the controversy surrounding his earthly existence. This includes the claims that Velimirovic had been graced with special mystical powers --those of epiphany, prophecy, and healing -- that are regarded, within the Christian tradition, as important characteristics of saints. The article explores the ways in which the assertions about the "mystical" dimension of Velimirovic's personal history endows the anti-Semitic aspect of his ideology with unwarranted significance and helps maintain anti-Jewish rhetoric on the visible margin of contemporary Serbian religious discourse.

1. The Controversy Surrounding Velimirovic's Life And His Anti-Semitic 'Words To The Serbian People Through The Dungeon Window'
In the first half of the 20th century, Nikolaj Velimirovic, Bishop of Ohrid and Zica, was one of the most highly regarded of Serbian clerics, renowned as much for his nationalist fervor as for his charisma, oratorical skills, and scholarship. In the 1930s, at the pinnacle of his career as a priest, theologian, and evangelist, Velimirovic emerged as the principal voice of Christian nationalism in Serbia. He advocated the establishment of a society founded on Orthodox Christian traditions, and a uniquely Serbian form of religious nationalism and monarchism (Popov, 1993, Subotic, 1993, 1996). Also, Velimirovic propagated the rejection of "all foreign customs and superficial Western traditions" (Radosavljevic, 1986, p. 14) including individualism, equality, religious tolerance, democracy, and other values of modernity and enlightenment.

The anti-Westernism and antimodernism apparent in Velimirovic's writings were suffused with strong anti-Semitic sentiments that permeated his religious thinking from the mid-1920s (Janic, 1999; Djordjevic, 1996). The anti-Jewish and anti-Judaic references consisted of a blend of religious anti-Semitism, which has a long history in (Orthodox) Christianity (Poliakov, 1974), and the 19th-century anti-Semitic conspiratorial tradition whose popularity culminated across Europe in the decades preceding World War II (Cohn, 1957; Pipes, 1998). In Velimirovic's writings, Jews are routinely portrayed as Christ-killers and a cursed people who betrayed God, but also as a powerful satanic force conspiring against Christian Europe (Velimirovic, 1976, 1977, 1985, 2000).

In the 1930s, Velimirovic's ideology provided an important source of inspiration for the forces of Serbian fascism, epitomized by the notorious movement Zbor, founded in 1934 by the pro-Nazi politician Dimitrije Ljotic. Zbor was the most enthusiastic and active collaborationist organization in Serbia during the years of Nazi occupation (Martic, 1980, Stefanovic, 1984). In one of his last interviews, published in the United States in the 1950s, Velimirovic insisted that he was the spiritual leader and eminence grise of Serbian populism exemplified by Ljotic's Zbor. Velimirovic intimated that Ljotic was his "pupil and faithful follower in Christ" who, in the overall Christian nationalist project, was merely "passing the incense burner" (cited in Popov, 1993, p. 6).

In spite of demonstrable ideological links with Zbor and its leader in the prewar years, Velimirovic -- unlike Ljotic -- refused to collaborate with the Nazis during the occupation. There are indications that, before the war, German authorities regarded the bishop -- a committed nationalist and anticommunist -- as a potential candidate for collaboration. Nonetheless, Velimirovic refused to support the occupying force (Dzomic, 2003, J. Radosavljevic, 2003). In July 1941, he was arrested on suspicion of links with Chetnik insurgents, and was remanded under house arrest in a Serbian monastery, first at Ljubostinja and then at Vojlovica. In September 1944, as German troops began to lose ground in the war against the Partisans, Velimirovic, accompanied by the Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo Dozic (who was also in German custody since the beginning of the war), was transferred abroad, first to Austria and then to Germany. Eventually, the two senior Serbian clerics ended up at the notorious concentration camp at Dachau, where they were remanded as "honorary prisoners" (Ehrenhaeftling) for just under three months. Velimirovic's and Dozic's release in December 1944 appears to have been part of a political deal struck between the prime minister of the Serbian collaborationist government Milan Nedic and the German envoy for the Balkans Hermann Neubacher (Petranovic, 1983; Kostic, 1991; Parezanin, 1971).

In recent decades, the brief internment at Dachau in 1944 has been used by Velimirovic's supporters to construct the image of their hero as a martyr and a victim of brutal Nazi persecution (e.g., A. Radosavljevic, 1986, 2003; Marjanovic, 1990; Velimirovic, 1991; see Byford, 2004 for the analysis of this "martyrdom myth"). This has been the case despite the fact that, as honorary prisoners, Velimirovic and Dozic never endured "enormous suffering and torture," as alleged in contemporary biographical accounts (see Tomanic, 2001). The persistent emphasis on the bishop's suffering at Dachau has been shown to serve an important function in the popularization of Velimirovic's work. The ubiquitous narrative of martyrdom acts as a "replacement myth" that diverts attention away from an important controversy surrounding this period of the bishop's life. It represses the fact that at Dachau, for reasons that defy rational explanation, Velimirovic wrote some of his most anti-Semitic material.

Velimirovic's notes from Dachau, which he is said to have written surreptitiously on scraps of (toilet) paper, were assembled and edited only in the 1980s by his nephew, the former bishop of Sabac and Valjevo, Jovan Velimirovic. The work was first published in Germany in 1985 by the then Serbian Orthodox bishop of Western Europe, Lavrentije Trifunovic, under the title "Words to the Serbian People Through the Dungeon Window" (Velimirovic, 1985). The principal message of the book is that World War II was the inevitable consequence of the secularization of "godless Europe." Velimirovic also attributed the tragic fate of Serbs during the war to their betrayal of God and Christian traditions in favor of the much-maligned European culture.

Behind the secular, de-Christianized European values anathematized in the book, Velimirovic cites Jewish influence. He claims that "all modern ideas including democracy, and strikes, and socialism, and atheism, and religious tolerance, and pacifism, and global revolution, and capitalism, and communism" are the inventions of "Jews, or rather their father, the Devil" (Velimirovic, 1985, p.194). Even more controversially, in the book Velimirovic reflects implicitly on the plight of Jews during World War II. He interprets their suffering as divine retribution for the murder of Christ:

"Because they have shown themselves to be worse enemies of God than godless Pilate, because in the heat of the battle they uttered those terrible words: 'His blood on us and our children.' That is when the innocent blood became the whip that drives them like cattle through centuries and from land to land, and the fire that burns all their warehouses of plots against Christ. Because that is what the devil, their father, taught them" (Velimirovic, 1985, p.194).

Because of statements like this, "Words to the Serbian People..." has acquired a special status in critical literature on Velimirovic, where it is treated as the epitome of Bishop Nikolaj's prejudice and hatred towards Jews and Judaism (David, 1991; Djordjevic, 1996; Byford and Billig, 2001; Lebl, 2003).

In contrast, in religious publications and ecclesiastical discourse, the status of the book is more complex. In accounts of Velimirovic's life, the creative endeavor at the camp is conveniently obscured by the broader theme of suffering that dominates the biographical narratives. In other contexts however, "Words to the Serbian People..." is attributed great importance, and is even regarded as occupying a privileged position in Velimirovic's opus. As will become apparent, the reasons for this are closely linked to Velimirovic's assumed status as a "man of God" and a saint.

2. Velimirovic's Status After World War II And His Rehabilitation In The 1980s
In the aftermath of World War II, Velimirovic immigrated to the United States, where he died in 1956. Back in his homeland, he was dismissed by the communist authorities as a "clerical-nationalist" and a "traitor." His citizenship was revoked and his name included on an unofficial list of authors whose work could not be openly published in the country. Also, until the late-1980s, Velimirovic was regularly subjected to attacks in the national press, where he was portrayed as a "fascist" (Miletic, 1972), "the darkest individual in the history of Serbian people" (Simic, 1986), and even as a "war criminal" (Jaksic, 1981).

This state of affairs persisted until the rise of Serbian nationalism in the late 1980s, when a small group of Velimirovic's supporters within the Serbian Orthodox Church led by three ambitious nationalist theologians Amfilohije Radovic, Artemije Radosavljevic, and Atanasije Jevtic emerged as a prominent force within the ecclesiastical establishment (Tomanic, 2001; Radic, 2002; Perica, 2002). Together with other nationalist institutions such as the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Serbian Union of Writers, the right-wing clergy -- followers of Nikolaj Velimirovic -- became the principal voice of Serbian ethnic nationalism. By 1991, Radovic, Jevtic, and Radosavljevic had all been ordained as bishops, and since then they have been wielding considerable influence within the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The newly acquired status of Velimirovic's supporters within the Church enabled them to embark on an intensive public campaign aimed at rehabilitating their hero. The campaign consisted of measures aimed at imposing positive interpretations of Nikolaj's life on public memory. In 1985, Bishop Jovan of Sabac and Valjevo founded the religious journal "Glas Crkve" (Voice of the Church), which was devoted to the popularization of Velimirovic's writings. In 1986, Atanasije Jevtic privately published the book "The New Chrysostom" by Artemije Radosavljevic, the first affirmative biography of Velimirovic written since World War II. In the late 1980s, "Glas Crkve" became the first publishing house in postcommunist Serbia to print Velimirovic's books.

In addition to various publishing activities, the Diocese of Sabac and Valjevo organized regular commemorative ceremonies dedicated to Velimirovic, including the transport in May 1991 of his remains from the United States to Serbia. All of these events were endorsed, attended, and publicized by the likes of Jevtic, Radovic, and Radosavljevic, as well as by the country's nationalist political and cultural elite.

Efforts aimed at restoring Velimirovic's reputation went hand in hand with the campaign to have him canonized. In fact, many of Velimirovic's advocates, both within the church and outside it, viewed canonization as the ultimate objective of their endeavors, as a symbolic act that would irrevocably confirm the bishop's return into the spiritual life of the Serbian nation, and mark the end of 40 years of vilification.

3. The First Stage Of The Campaign For Canonization: The Making Of A Religious 'Cult'
In the Orthodox Church, unlike in the Roman Catholic tradition, there are no formal procedures associated with canonization. Proclamation of saints is not preceded by a formal diocesan inquiry, sessions by the Congregation for the Causes for Canonization, or well-defined courses of action regarding the verification of miracles. Also, no distinction is made between "beatification" and "canonization." The Orthodox churches are believed to follow the tradition of early Christendom, when canonization was the means by which ecclesiastical authorities simply formalized the veneration of a martyr or a confessor already worshipped as such by the wider community of faithful. Slobodan Mileusnic, curator of the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church and one of the leading experts on Serbian saints, suggests for instance that "as opposed to the [Catholic] Western Church, which declares its saints through an almost administrative process, the Serbian Orthodox Church merely sanctions a cult that already exists" (cited in Grujic, 2000. See also Mileusnic, 2000; J. Velimirovic, 1991; Jevtic, 1987).

The less stringent rules for canonization in the Orthodox world are regarded by many Serbian clerics as the only authentic and apposite practice of declaring saints. In 1987, Archimandrite Atanasije Jevtic dismissed formal procedures followed by the Vatican as "papal innovation" and "frivolity before God" (Jevtic, 1987, p. 30).

Because of the enduring and widespread belief that canonization represents little more than an ecclesiastical formality by means of which the church ratifies an existing cult, in the early stages of the social construction of Velimirovic's sanctity in the late 1980s, Velimirovic's supporters invested considerable effort into demonstrating the existence of a "living cult" devoted to the bishop. Articles published in "Glas Crkve" and speeches delivered at commemorative ceremonies organized in Velimirovic's honor regularly emphasized the extensive veneration of Nikolaj among Serbs, which was said to date back to the 1950s. Public gatherings, commemorations, celebrations, literary evenings, etc. that were part of the campaign for rehabilitation were routinely interpreted as evidence for the vast following that Velimirovic has among the Serbian people. Although most of these events were organized by the pro-Velimirovic clique within the Serbian church, and were attended by a small proportion of the public, they were nonetheless flagged as reflecting the "will of the people," and as manifestations of the overwhelming public adulation of the bishop.

A key event in the popularization of Velimirovic's cult took place on the 31st anniversary of the bishop's death in March 1987. On this occasion, priests from the Diocese of Sabac and Valjevo -- led by Bishops Jovan Velimirovic and Amfilohije Radovic -- informally canonized Nikolaj and declared 18 March, the day of his death, a religious holiday in the diocese. An article published shortly afterward in "Glas Crkve" -- whose editors promptly adopted "Holy Bishop Nikolaj" as the journal's patron saint -- applauded the informal nature of this act and relished in its spontaneous and populist character. The article emphasized that the canonization "was not declared from the pulpit" but reflected the "will of the whole of the Serbian nation" (Rankovic, 1987, p. 26).

The unofficial canonization -- which, according to Archimandrite Atanasije Jevtic, was consistent with "the traditions of the Orthodox Church" (Jevtic, 1987, p. 31) -- helped to promote, institutionalize, and in some sense reify the alleged cult surrounding Velimirovic's name. Albeit unsanctioned by the Synod or the Council of Bishops, the canonization legitimized the emerging practices of referring to Velimirovic as the "Holy Bishop," the production of religious icons bearing his image, and even the building of chapels and churches in his honor. Also, this contentious decision was flagged as the "first step on the road to [full] canonization" (Velimirovic, 1991, p. 22). In that sense, it was a calculated attempt to put pressure on the higher church authorities to consider what was identified as the "will of the people" and formally declare Bishop Nikolaj a national saint.

* This article is part of a larger research project on the rehabilitation of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic in contemporary Serbian society funded by the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. The article is published with that institute's permission.

Jovan Byford is lecturer in Social Psychology in the Department of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom.

SOURCES

Byford, J., 2002, "Christian Right-Wing Organizations and the Spreading of Anti-Semitic Prejudice in Post-Milosevic Serbia: The Case of the Dignity Patriotic Movement" in "East European Jewish Affairs," Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 43-60.

Byford, J. 2003, "Antisemitism and the Christian Right in Post-Milosevic Serbia: From Conspiracy Theory to Hate Crime" in "Internet Journal of Criminology," Vol. 1, pp. 1-27.

Byford, J., 2004, "From 'Traitor' to 'Saint' in Public Memory: The Case of Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic" in "ACTA" (Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism), No. 22 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Antisemitism).

Byford, J. and Billig M., 2001, "The Emergence of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories in Yugoslavia During the War with Nato" in "Patterns of Prejudice," Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 51-63.

Cohn, N., 1957, "Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (London: Secker and Warburg).

David, F., 1991, "Vladika Antisemita" [Bishop Anti-Semite] in "Vreme" (Belgrade), 29 July.

Djordjevic, M., 1996, "Povratak Propovednika" [Return of the Preacher] in "Republika" (Belgrade), Nos. 143-144. pp. 1-12.

Djordjevic, M., 2003, "Srpska Organisticka Misao" [Serbian Organic Thought] in M. Djordjevic (ed.), "Srpska Konzervativna Misao" [Serbian Conservative Thought] (Belgrade: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights), pp. 5-33.

Djurdjevic, R., 1997, "Idejni i Duhovni Trovaci sa Zapada" [Western Ideological and Spiritual Poisoners] (Beograd: Ichtys Press).

Djurdjevic, R., 2002, "Svetosavski Nacionalizam u Judeomasonskom Okruzenju" [Nationalism of St Sava in Judeo-Masonic Surrounding] (Beograd: Ichtys Press).

Dzomic, V., 2003, "Prilozi za biografiju Sv. Vladike Nikolaja u II Svetskom ratu" [Contribution to the Biography of Holy Bishop Nikolaj during World War II] in A. Jevtic (ed.) "Sveti Vladika Nikolaj Ohridski i Zicki" [Holy Bishop Nikolaj of Ohrid and Zica] (Kraljevo: Sveti Manastir Zica), pp. 426-439.

Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 2003, "Special announcement by the Holy Council of Bishops," 19 May, http://www.spc.yu/Vesti-2003/05/19-5-03_c1.html

Jaksic, L., 1981, "Kleronacionalisti -- protiv vlastitih naroda" [Clerical-Nationalists -- Against their Own People] in "Oslobodjenje" (Sarajevo), 7 July.

Janic, D. J., 1999, "U pepelu ocajan sedeci" [While Sitting, Desperate, in the Ashes] in "Sveti Knez Lazar" (Prizren), Vol. 7, pp. 109-142.

Jankovic, M.D., 2003, "Sveti Episkop Nikolaj: Zivot, misao i delo, Knjiga III" [Bishop Nikolaj: His Life, Thought and Work], Vol. 3 (Valjevo: Eparhija Sabacko -- Valjevska).

Jevtic, A., 1987, "Prolece je burno i vetrovito" [The Spring Is Stormy and Windy] in "Glas Crkve," No. 4, pp. 17-32.

Kostic, B., 1991, "Za Istoriju Nasih Dana: Odlomci iz zapisa za vreme okupacije" [For the History of Our Days: Extracts from a Diary at the Time of Occupation] (Beograd: Nova Iskra).

Kostunica, V., 2003, "Telegram -- odgovor Predsednika V. Kostunice" [Telegram -- Response from President V. Kostunica] in A. Jevtic (ed.) "Sveti Vladika Nikolaj Ohridski i Zicki" [Holy Bishop Nikolaj of Ohrid and Zica] (Kraljevo: Sveti Manastir Zica), pp. 321-322.

Krstic, N., 2002, "Pobediti ili Nestati" [To Win or to Perish]. (Belgrade: Rivel Co).

Lebl, A., 2003, "Slast oca Djavola" [Pleasure of the Father, the Devil] in Danas (Belgrade), 21 May.

Marjanovic, B., 1990, "Izdajnik a u Dahauu!" [A Traitor -- Yet in Dachau!] in "Ilustrovana Politika" (Belgrade), 16 October.

Martic, M., 1980, "Dimitrije Ljotic and the Yugoslav National Movement Zbor, 1935-1945" in "East European Quarterly," Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 219-239.

Miletic, V., 1972, "Politicki tamjan" [Political Incense] in "NIN" (Belgrade), 8 October.

Mileusnic, S., 2000, "Novi zastupnici pred bogom" [New Intercessors Before God] in "Vreme" (Belgrade), 27 May.

Mileusnic, S., 2003, "Sveti Srbi" [Holy Serbs] (Birmingham, U.K.: Lazarica Press).

Parezanin, R., 1971, "Drugi Svetski Rat i Dimitrije V. Ljotic" [The Second World War and Dimitrije Ljotic] (Munich: Iskra).

Perica, V., 2002, "Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States" (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Petranovic, B., 1983, "Revolucija i Kontrarevolucija u Jugoslaviji: 1941-1945" [Revolution and Counterrevolution in Yugoslavia: 1941-1945] (Beograd: Narodna Knjiga).

Pipes, D., 1998, "Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From" (New York: The Free Press).

Poliakov, L., 1974, "The History of Anti-Semitism" (4 Vols.) (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).

Popov, N., 1993, "Srpski populizam od marginalne do dominantne pojave" [Serbian Populism from a Marginal to a Dominant Phenomenon" in "Vreme" (Belgrade), No.133, pp. 1-35.

Radic, R., 2002, "Crkva i 'srpsko pitanje'" [The Church and the 'Serbian Question'], in N. Popov (ed.) "Srpska Strana Rata, Knjiga II" [The Road to War in Serbia], Vol. 2, (Beograd: Republika), pp. 301-339.

Radosavljevic, A., 1986, "Novi Zlatousti" [The New Chrysostom] (Belgrade: Atanasije Jeftic).

Radosavljevic, A., 2003, "Zivotopis Svetog Vladike Nikolaja" [Hagiography of Holy Bishop Nikolaj], in A. Jevtic (ed.) "Sveti Vladika Nikolaj Ohridski i Zicki" [Holy Bishop Nikolaj of Ohrid and Zica] (Kraljevo: Sveti Manastir Zica), pp. 329-340.

Radosavljevic, J., 2003, "Zivot i Stradanje Zice i Studenice pred rat, pod okupacijom i posle rata" [Life and the Destruction of Zica and Studenica Before, During and After the Occupation] (Novi Sad: Beseda).

Rankovic, L., 1987, "Kandilo pred Ikonom" [Candle in Front of the Icon] in "Glas Crkve" (Valjevo), No. 3, pp. 26-28.

Simic, P., 1986, "Ljoticevci i Nikolajevci, stari i novi" [Supporters of Ljotic and Nikolaj, Old and New] in "Vecernje Novosti" (Belgrade), 6 October.

Stefanovic, M., 1984, "Zbor Dimitrija Ljotica, 1934-1945" [Dimitrije Ljotic's Zbor, 1934-1945] (Beograd: Narodna Knjiga).

Subotic, D., 1993, "Pravoslavlje izmedju Istoka i Zapada u bogoslovnoj misli Nikolaja Velimirovica i Justina Popovica" [Orthodoxy Between East and West in the Religious Thought of Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic] in G. Zivkovic (ed.), "Covek i Crkva u Vrtlogu Krize: Sta nam nudi pravoslavlje danas?" [Man and Church in the Vortex of Crisis: What Can Orthodoxy Offer Us Today?] (Valjevo: Glas Crkve).

Subotic, D., 1996, "Episkop Nikolaj i Pravoslavni Bogomoljacki Pokret" [Bishop Nikolaj and the Orthodox Devotionalist Movement] (Beograd: Nova Iskra).

Tomanic, M., 2001, "Srpska Crkva u ratu i rat u njoj" [The Serbian Church During the War and the Wars within It] (Beograd: Medijska Knjizara Krug).

Velimirovic, J., 1991, "Crtice iz Zivota Vladike Nikolaja" [Sketches from the Life of Bishop Nikolaj] in "Glas Crkve" (Valjevo), No. 2, pp. 21-25.

Velimirovic, N., 1976, "Nove Besede pod Gorom" [New Sermons Under the Mountain], Collected Works, Vol. IV (Dusseldorf: Publisher unknown).

Velimirovic, N., 1977, "Indijska Pisma" [Indian Letters], Collected Works, Vol. VIII (Dusseldorf: Publisher unknown).

Velimirovic, N., 1985, "Poruka Srpskom Narodu Kroz Tamnicki Prozor" [Words to the Serbian People through the Dungeon Window] (Hilmunster, Germany: Himmelstuer).

Velimirovic, N., 2000, "Ohridski Prolog" [Ohrid Prologue] (Valjevo: "Glas Crkve").

Compiled by Dr. Michael Shafir.
Logged
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2005, 01:08:05 AM »

St Andrew of Crete calls the Jews, the children of darkness.  St Kosmas calls them God-haters.  The chosen people killed God. This has to have cosmic signficance.  The Holy Orthodox Church condemns Judaism. (Read the verses for Holy Week).  For the PC-minded , our Holy Faith is "anti-semitic".  So be it.  You can't be chosen by God and then kill HIm and then expect in 2005 to be excused on the grounds that it is not nice to be unpleasant to people.  America is in therapy at the moment.  When the naughty Arabs did 911, the conservative, men with balls, called for reprisals, but the libs went on therapy. "Lets show and tell like good Dr Spock... sorry I upset you my Moslem brother etc..."  The Jews are responsible for world chaos, having killed God.  Get into your Lib brains that this means big trouble on an historical and cosmic level.  You killed the Emperor and Darth Vader is going to get your for it!

Jew means Judist, i.e. one who practices the heresy of Judaism.  I am anti-Jew but NOT contra Jews.  Work that one out my Lib brethren! (especially Mr TomS).
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2005, 01:15:51 AM »

The Jews are responsible for world chaos, having killed God.ÂÂ  Get into your Lib brains that this means big trouble on an historical and cosmic level.ÂÂ  You killed the Emperor and Darth Vader is going to get your for it!

Such Love! This must be the Holy Spirit speaking through you (not!)
So, the Death of Our Lord was not voluntary then?ÂÂ  And there is a Manichean "duality" going on?
Friend, thou speakest heresy. I will hold to the Orthodox Faith of my fathers thank you very much.

"Watch out, the Libs and the Jewish boogie men are coming to getchya!"
« Last Edit: July 03, 2005, 01:31:14 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,246


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2005, 03:36:10 AM »

I affirm the distinction between religious Jew and ethnic Jew. It's one that is not often enough articulated explicitly today, and that is to our discredit, as it makes us appear to be attacking someone because of their genetics and not critiquing them because of their religion. But here's the thing, some of this stuff that is being mentioned does attack people because of their genetics; that's why it's unacceptable. All people are made in the image of God, and all people are born inherently capable of doing good (made after the likeness of God) and without sin. No ethnic group is born with a much greater tendency to sin. Even when God had a "chosen people, " God didn't play favorites as far as race went, making some people blessed or cursed solely because of their race (actually it was a "mixed multitude" that came out of Egypt, so Israel was a mixed bag from the beginning).

This may be the first time anyone has ever mistaken me for a lib. Grin I must be mellowing in my old age.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2005, 03:37:53 AM by Paradosis » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2005, 03:49:10 PM »

This is a very difficult topic to discuss because of the emotions involved, and because it all goes against the grain of the western zeitgeist so to speak.

As it stands, we're not a culture accustomed to speaking plainly, unflatteringly of ideas - and even when we do, if such speach is not couched in syrupy irenicism to the point of being made impotent, then it is dismissed, a priori.

Serbian Patriot, you will have no luck discussing this here.  I'm not saying you're in the wrong because of that, simply stating a fact you must have observed by now.

Logged
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2005, 05:43:44 PM »

This is a very difficult topic to discuss because of the emotions involved, and because it all goes against the grain of the western zeitgeist so to speak.

As it stands, we're not a culture accustomed to speaking plainly, unflatteringly of ideas - and even when we do, if such speach is not couched in syrupy irenicism to the point of being made impotent, then it is dismissed, a priori.

Serbian Patriot, you will have no luck discussing this here.ÂÂ  I'm not saying you're in the wrong because of that, simply stating a fact you must have observed by now.
I certainly have experienced that brother!!  But this very issue is what inspired me to become a member of this site.  In the past week especially I have been reading the book that I quote at the start, and it is unbelievable how many answers to various questions it has given me.  This Saint was truly great, and I mean to make his thoughts and views known in what little capacity I have.  A lot if not most of the people on this site live in America, and I know that many will do exactly as you say- dismiss the ideas simply because I am speaking plainly without pandering to their world view.  If I was to not try and stand my ground despite this then these type of people have all the more free reign to extinguish other peoples views (even the views of numerous Saints) in the future.  Therefore I will continue to post passages written by this great Saint, and truly I hope that people will see using their God-given brain that he speaks the truth. 
Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2005, 06:33:23 PM »

This is my next installment, so to speak:

Where there is great joy there is also great sorrow.  Enormous joy for people when God appeared on this earth.  Enormous sorrow when people fell away from God and returned to the service of satan.  This tradgedy resulted from the non-Orthodox West, and for two reasons.  The first is hatred towards the heretical clergy, and the second as a result from hatred against Jews.  Both these hatreds arose in the hearts of Western humanity from the same seed.  And that seed was the attempt by the Christian clergy and the Jews to completely control peoples lives and states in every possible sphere. (Note by SP: he is referring to the Catholic Church and Jews seperately, not conspiring together so to speak.  I just couldn't translate it that well).  The hatred of such a clergy translated into a hatred for the church, and the hatred towards Jews resulted in hatred towards Christ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was from the Jewish nation that he was rejected and as a result of the Jewish nation that he was crucified.  What more can I say?  If someone is against the Jews, how can he be against Christ, against whom Jews have been battling for 2000 years?  But where satans claws are embedded, there can be no logic.
Led by a hatred of the clergy and Jews, the Western nations little by little rejected Christ, until the present days where they have totally removed him from every branch of national life and every state institution, and have limited him only to our Churches.  From him that rose from the dead and said: 'Every power on heaven and earth give unto me', these blinded people have taken away every power.  But not just power, but influence.  In the fields, in the schools, in society, in the state, in politics, in art, in international relations, in science, in literature and in everything else, the influence of Christ is absent.
God is not to be toyed with.  Whenever men, as guests in Gods house, become rude there has to be a punishment as a warning from God.  God has sent two horrific warnings, these are the two world wars within tweny years of each other.  May the Christian nations kneel before the injured Saviour and return to him the power, respect, glory and honour which belongs only to him.  Do this my Orthodox brothers, if you want to save yourselves from a third world war more horrific than either of the last two.  From Christ I wish you health and salvation, and from you to Christ glory and thanks for ever more.  Amen
Logged

observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2005, 07:00:38 PM »

"His blood be upon us and our children".  The covenant is broken.  The Talmud replaces the OT. Curren Judaism is no longer related to what we believe. I don't know what Persian dark and light have to do with the historical fact that the Judists have caused trouble since then.  They were banned from Russia for hundreds of years. I suspect living in the the Land of OZ, you have succumbed to the current Zeitgeist of PC-ism.  If you read Russian, read Metropolitan Ioann of Leningrad on this issue.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,246


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2005, 07:08:08 PM »

Quote
This is a very difficult topic to discuss because of the emotions involved, and because it all goes against the grain of the western zeitgeist so to speak.

Quite the contrary, I believe that I (and others here) have spoken quite plainly, and without any particular emotion or subconscious bias. Both here and at the Cafe (e.g,. on this thread), I have made a number of posts trying to grapple with this issue, and I believe your above statement to be little more than a cheap shot. Just because many people unthinkingly make reactionary statements when this subject comes up, that doesn't mean that we are doing that because we have somehow been duped by the very culture/mindset that we are supposedly protecting/defending.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2005, 07:12:15 AM »

Just because many people unthinkingly make reactionary statements when this subject comes up, that doesn't mean that we are doing that because we have somehow been duped by the very culture/mindset that we are supposedly protecting/defending.
Well if people are, as you say, UNTHINKINGLY making REACTIONARY statements when this topic comes up, they are not behaving rationally or reasonably.  What other possible reason can there be for this strange occurence other than that their mind has been programmed to do this by the 'culture' they are supposed to be protecting?
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2005, 07:57:00 AM »

observer, Serbian Patriot,

Have you no fear of God? even when the Divine Apostle St. Paul admonishes you in the eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans by telling you that Christian Gentiles ought not to be boastful and contemptuous toward unbelieving Jews. For Israel's heritage is holy and ought to make Christians humble. Jewish tradition and righteous Jews are the root (verse 16). Gentile believers are a wild branch grafted in (verse 17). Thus, the Church is one with Israel, and it's consummation, it's ultimate fruition, the fulfillment of Israel when he says:
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Romans 11:16-18)

Have you no fear of God? even when the Divine Apostle St. Paul admonishes by telling you that while God is saving the Gentiles between the Two Comings of Christ, he censures Gentile conceit by revealing a "mystery" (verse 25) that God is saving the elect among the Jews also, so that "All Israel will be saved" (verse 26) when he says:
"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ "The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ For this is My covenant with them,
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ When I take away their sins." " (Romans 11:25-27)


And have you no fear of God when again the Divine Apostle admonishes you by saying:
"Concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2005, 08:13:56 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2005, 08:07:35 AM »

Paradosis,

Quote
Quite the contrary, I believe that I (and others here) have spoken quite plainly, and without any particular emotion or subconscious bias. Both here and at the Cafe (e.g,. on this thread), I have made a number of posts trying to grapple with this issue, and I believe your above statement to be little more than a cheap shot. Just because many people unthinkingly make reactionary statements when this subject comes up, that doesn't mean that we are doing that because we have somehow been duped by the very culture/mindset that we are supposedly protecting/defending.

I'm sorry to see you've decided to take a generalization (which I believe to be an accurate one) to be a specific condemnation of you.  Frankly, you didn't even cross my mind when I was typing my original reply in this thread.

Logged
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2005, 08:10:11 AM »

Sons inherit the sins of their fathers and have to pay for them.  If the sons do not redeem themselves, then their own sons and grandsons will suffer the consequences.  The debt has to be repaid. That is the law everywhere on earth and in every society on earth.  The son inherits the illnesses of his father.  If he does not cure himself from that illness then the illness will be passed on to his son, or grandson, or great-grandson, up to the fourth generation.
If the son 'pays back' all the 'debts' of his father, then his descendants will be happy.  If the son cures himself of his fathers illness, his descendants will be healthy.
Oh brothers of mine, the 18th century is the father of the 19th century, and the 19th century is the father of the 20th century. The father sinned and indebted himself greatly.  The son did not pay back this 'debt', but fell even further into 'debt', and this fell on the grandson.  The father was infected with a terrible 'illness', but the son didn't cure this illness from himself and his 'illness' became even greater than that of his fathers.  This 'illness' was passed on to, and affected the grandson with three times the strength of the original illness.
The 18th century witnessed a rebellion against the Church and clergy of Catholicism.  The 19th century witnessed a rebellion against God.  The 20th century witnessed a pact with the devil.  The 'debts' have grown and the 'illness' has spread.  And the Lord said that the sins of the father are transferred to his descendants all the way to the fourth generation.  Do you not see how God has treated the grandsons, because of the sins of their European grand-fathers? Do you not see the whip on the grand-children because of the unpaid 'debts' of the grand-fathers?
The anti-Christ emperor represents the start of the 19th century.  The anti-Christ Pope represents the middle of the 19th century.  European anti-Christ philosophers represent the end of the 19th century.  Bonaparte, Pius, and Nietzsche.  Three disastrous names, three disturbed individuals, three inherited illnesses.
Are they the victors of the 19th century?  No, they are the biggest inheritors of the illnesses of the 18th century....
Cesar the emperor and philosopher. Not even in pagan Rome, but in the middle of Christian Europe!  They are not the victors, but the defeated.  When Bonaparte laughed at the holy relics in the Kremlin, and when Pius declared himself infallible, and when Nietzsche declared himself in the service of anti-Christ- then the sun went down... Look at this never before seen series of events: an atheist emperor, an atheist Pope, and an atheist philosopher.  The 18th century sentanced Christ to death. The 19th century crucified Christ all over again.  The 20th century declared Christ dead, and claimed that he did not rise from the dead.  Why then are you surprised brothers, that whips of unheard of fury are beating down on Europe?
...Who are then the victors, if Cesar, the Pope, or the philosopher are not?  The victors are the Russian and Serbian peasants.  In the words of Christ:  'Who is the smallest among you, he is the biggest' /Luke 9,48/.  Who were the most unheard of, the most insignificant, and the smallest in the 19th century, in the century of great Bonaparte, the infallible Pius and presumptous Nietzsche?  Who can it be but the Russian and Serbian peasant-warriors who fought for their holy places  and freed Russia from secular Europe, and Serbia from Muslim hegemony?
Demonic wars, demonic clergy, and demonic philosophy- those are the emperor, the Pope and the philosopher of the 19th centruy.  The Serbian peasant represented the very opposite to all this:  Firstly, cross-bearing heroism, secondly a clergy of martyrs, and thirdly a simple fishermans apostolic wisdom.  On these simple peasants, the same words of our Lord Christ echo again: 'I thank you Lord, the Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden this from the overly wise and rational, and have declared it to the ordinary people'/Mathew 11,25/.  What did God declare to these ordinary peasants?  He declared masculine bravery, heavenly holiness, and Godly wisdom.  He gave them the exact opposite to the western emperor, pope and philosopher.  It was totally opposite, like night and day.
Oh my brothers, hold fast to the eternal victors, and not to the eternal losers.  Hold fast to matyrdom...Amen
Logged

Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2005, 08:21:24 AM »

observer, Serbian Patriot,

Have you no fear of God?
Because I fear God, I should repress logic and the rightings of holy father?  A totally irrelevant and provocative statement.  I would like to see declare infront of the SOC's holy synod, has Saint Nikolaj no fear of God.  I think you would be chased out like a demon from the posssessed.

even when the Divine Apostle St. Paul admonishes you in the eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans by telling you that Christian Gentiles ought not to be boastful and contemptuous toward unbelieving Jews.
Who is boasting?  No body is being contemptful simply because they are Jews.  Realise this once and for all!  It is not just because they are Jews, it is because of what they have done.  Im sorry you consider your interpretation of Holy Scriptures more valid than a Saints.  Keep quoting as many verses as you can possibly come up with, but realise you are not contradicting me, you are contradicting a Saint.  Infact many Saints and Holy fathers, but in this instance Saint Nikolaj. 
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2005, 08:29:40 AM »

St Nikolaj is indeed a Saint, but you have turned him into an idol, as you have your "patriotism".
I knew you would question "my interpretation" of the Scriptures, but in fact it is the interpretation given in the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible pp365-366.
St. Nikolaj was wrong on this point- it doesn't make him any less a Saint. St. Gregory of Nyssa was also wrong in his origenist ideas, but he is still a Saint.

This is now my second and last admonishment. For the last time I beg you to turn away from this error.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2005, 08:44:54 AM »

Beside the fact that you will search in vain to find any Church Father who supports the philo-Judaic understanding of this topic being promoted by certain persons in this forum, consider what the Scriptures say when not read selectively...

"I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Apocalypse 2:9)

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you." (Apocalypse 3:9)

14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,
15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men
16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"  (St.Matthew 27:25)

etc., etc.

In other words, giving a one-sided and isolated treatment of this topic by citing St.Paul's positive sayings regarding the Jews as a "people" is very misleading - in particular when one confounds the "holy root" (which is the Patriarchs and Prophets - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, etc. etc.) with those who are living as students of the "sages" and institutions/religious philosophy which not only applauded (and directly participated) in Deicide, but was specifically condemned by Christ as having added impious "leaven" to the Law of God.

Perhaps one passage from St.Paul which does balance the matter and put it in proper perspective is the following...

28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. (Romans 11:28)

In other words, as a people God has a purpose for the Jews - in the end times, they will as a people turn to God, and enter the Church.  However, as far as their current condition is concerned, they are vagabonds and renegades, in so far as they have continued in the impiety of their forefathers.  Thus, they are no different than those who in olden times fell into idolatry and ceased to observe the teachings of the Law & Prophets - they may continue to exist as a people, with the possibility that the time will come that at least their children would turn from infidelity and "come home" so to speak...but in the mean time, they have fallen from grace.  Notice also that it is said quite explicitly, that the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people, our Lord's keeping them until that time, is due not to any personal merit on their part, but because of the righteousness of their forefathers - for the sake of them, the Lord will make good on His promises in spite of their infidelity.

Please keep in mind that the Lord also preserved Cain in this way - protecting him by placing a "mark" upon him, thus leaving him to roam as one despised (and rightfully so), but also protected by the Lord from being exterminated by the hands of those who would take it upon themselves to rid the world of him.

As for recognizing the role of Jewish people (who are very conscious of who they are, and who they are not, and who you are and who you are not), their culture, and their religion in mischief throughout history - this is no more an "excercise in hate" than recognizing such mischief in say, Islamic religion/civilization.  It takes little courage nowdays to speak poorly of Islam/Muslims (whether what one says is true or untrue - and there is a lot of both going around at the moment), but for some very obvious reasons (which no one is allowed to speak of apparently - "the Emperor has no clothes" type situation really) we westerners are not accorded the same "privilege" in polite society to subject Jews and Judaism to the same scrutiny.

Of course, I would ask that it be noticed that I say "no more an excercise in hate" - because of course, it can very much be a point for engendering hatred.  But then again, you see alot of immoderate emotion and reactionary rhetoric coming from the opponents of Islam as well.

Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2005, 08:46:36 AM »

St. Gregory of Nyssa was also wrong in his origenist ideas, but he is still a Saint.

I know this is off-topic, but I must vindicate St Gregory of Nyssa on this one. There is this age-old and widespread misconception that any and all forms of apokatastasis are “origenist”; however the fact of the matter is that St Gregory of Nyssa along with Iraneous of Lyons taught forms of apokatastasis which are not counter-orthodox, nor can they appropriately be labeled “origenist”.

An Orthodox clarification of the context in which St Gregory of Nyssa undersrtood “the restoration of all things" can be found in Metropolitan Hierotheos' work titled “Life After Death” which may be found here at the following link:

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.08.htm

Origen’s heresy (if he indeed ascribed to it) was the belief that the human will became the result of the status of one’s nature, arising from a scheme of repitive incarnations of pre-existent souls into created human bodies as a sort of course of driving the distorted nature to perfection, in order to ultimately achieve perfection in the human will, such that all are saved as a result. St Gregory of Nyssa’s conception however involved the restoration of the nature of human beings, however not their human will; and as such salvation is not imposed upon anyone contra to their free will.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2005, 08:51:29 AM »

St Nikolaj is indeed a Saint, but you have turned him into an idol, as you have your "patriotism".
How you like to twist things!  My admiration and reverence for him means I have turned him into an idol does it?  Well if you are trying to imply that I worship him ahead of everything else, remember this: Virtually every paragraph in this book he beseeches Serbs to kneel before Christ and serve him.  If there is one overall message in the book, it is:  Return to Christ.  No word appears more often than the word Christ.  To say I have turned him into an idol, simply because I quote him and agree with him is ludicrous.  Should I assume that the media is your idol, since you espouse and adhere to their viewpoint?  Using your logic it would be justifiable to claim this. ÂÂ
My patriotism does not enter the equation.  I have not even mentioned it or used it in anyway in this discussion.  I think you have problems with my screen name and a negative view of patriotism in general, and have therefore sought to include it in this discussion, citing it as an idol of mine.  This niether surprises nor bothers me.  It reminds me of my first posting in this forum, in which a neurotic poster declared that patriots 'scare him', simply because of my screen name.

I knew you would question "my interpretation" of the Scriptures, but in fact it is the interpretation given in the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible pp365-366.
St. Nikolaj was wrong on this point- it doesn't make him any less a Saint. St. Gregory of Nyssa was also wrong in his origenist ideas, but he is still a Saint.
Look who has declared him to be wrong!! You, an anonymous person on the internet.  While I keep citing this Saint, you keep citing your interpretation.  Never will your interpretation be more valuable to me.

This is now my second and last admonishment. For the last time I beg you to turn away from this error.
If it was an error I would turn away as soon as possible.  But all evidence points to you being the one who is wrong.  As it happens I am going on a very long, 8 week trip and will be unable to access the internet.  Therefore God bless you all, and I hope that when I return we can continue to discuss this and other issues.
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2005, 09:03:53 AM »

"I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Apocalypse 2:9)

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you." (Apocalypse 3:9)

14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,
15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men
16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"  (St.Matthew 27:25)

Augustine,

[Admonishment #1]
And here my friend is the answer to why this is an error. The word translated as "Jews" in each citation above is "Ioudei" in the original koine, ie. "Judeans" and not "Ibrei" (Jews). This is most evident in the quote from Thessalonians you give above:
"For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets..."
"Jews" is "Ibrei" in koine, not "Ioudei". And when referring to the Jews in Romans 11, St. Paul never refers to them as "Ioudei" (Judeans) but "Israil" (Israel), because he is talking about the Jews, not the Judeans.

Similarly, the word used in the Greek Orthodox services on Great and Holy Saturday which some see as "antisemetic" is actually not "Jews", but "Judeans" ("O bloodthirsty Judeans! murderers of God!......")

And before anyone asks "what's the difference", this difference is best demonstrated by the fact that Christ and His disciples were Jews, but they were not Judeans. When Christ argues with the "Jews" in the King James version, He is actually a Jew arguing with Judeans.

Think of it this way: When I say "Washington is responsible for invading Iraq" I do not mean "the Americans are responsible for invading Iraq", In fact, I don't even mean that "every resident of Washington is responsible for invading Iraq", Similarly the fact that "the Judeans crucified Christ" does not mean "The Jews crucified Christ".

[/Admonishment #1]

All this is verifiable by your own examination of the facts.
Have I said anything "emotive" in all this? Wink
« Last Edit: July 04, 2005, 10:09:39 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,246


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2005, 10:23:17 AM »

Augustine,

So when you said:

"Serbian Patriot, you will have no luck discussing this here."

I should have interpreted that as meaning other people here, but not me, even though I'm taking the same position as everyone else?

I know your beliefs about Jews (conspiracy theory type of stuff--I've read your thoughts on the entire concept of conspiracy theories for that matter), and I do not agree. Neither do I agree with the way the Fathers are used to support the notion that the Jews as a people are in cahoots with Satan. I know you strongly disagree with my own position. I guess I don't know for sure what you meant by the statement, so I do take back my comment. I still don't think it would be impossible to have a fruitful conversation just because it is here though.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2005, 10:36:39 AM by Paradosis » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2005, 10:44:55 AM »

Here is a map of Palestine in Christ's time.

Even though Christ was born in Bethlehem, Christ and His disciples were Galileans. Christ grew up in Nazareth in Galilee, and Scripture says: "He shall be called a Nazarene". All His disciples hailed from Galilee.

After preaching through Galilee and travelling South and passing through Samaria, Christ and His Disciples enter Judea where the Judeans (Gk: "Ioudei") live. On Palm Sunday, Christ entered Jerusalem, the Capital of Judea and is at first welcomed by the Judeans (Ioudei), but then the Judeans (Ioudei) reject Him. On Great and Holy Friday, the Judeans (Ioudei) condemn Him to death. And when He is killed the Judeans (Ioudei) place a seal on His tomb.......

Do you see?

This isn't "Liberalism" or "PCness". This is FACTS. The Jews (Gk: "Ibrei") did not kill Christ, the Judeans (Ioudei) did.
It is not "liberalism" or "PCness" to want the Scriptures and our Liturgical texts translated correctly to mean what they were intended to mean.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2005, 11:06:49 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2005, 10:08:59 AM »

The word translated as "Jews" in each citation above is "Ioudei" in the original koine, ie. "Judeans" and not "Ibrei" (Jews). [....] And before anyone asks "what's the difference", this difference is best demonstrated by the fact that Christ and His disciples were Jews, but they were not Judeans. When Christ argues with the "Jews" in the King James [V]ersion, He is actually a Jew arguing with Judeans.

My goodness, this is unbelievable.

Bible History 101: The Kingdom of Israel was united under David and Solomon, but became divided in 920 BC due to Rehoboam's unjust rule. The northern kingdom, which is usually styled Israel and was composed of the 10 nothern tribes, proclaimed Jeroboam as king; they also set up a rival place of worship on Mount Gerizim. The southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained faithful to Rehoboam, and their kingdom, with its capital in Jerusalem, is usually styled Judah. Israel's capital, Samaria, fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the local population assimilated into Assyrian culture through intermarriage, strictly forbidden by the Law. Therefore, the "Samaritans", as they came to be known, were considered unclean by those of the Kingdom of Judah. Meanwhile, the southern kigndom itself was attacked by the Babylonians, and eventually its subjects were brought to captivity, and Jerusalem was destroyed (605-586 BC). But in 536 BC some exiles return from Babylon and rebuild the city and the Temple, this last one being dedicated on 516 BC. Judah was eventually conquered by Alexander the Great (333 BC), it remained under Greek control until 166 BC, when the aged Mattathias started the successful Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who defiled the Temple. Judea (Ioudaia is simply the Greek form of Judah) remained independent until 63 BC, when it became a vassal kingdom to the Romans, and then in AD 6 it was simply made a province of the Roman Empire.

Now, Hebrew is an ethnic term, and Israel national/religious: one might say that "the nation of the Hebrews is composed of the twelve tribes of Israel". "Israel" only became a specialized designation from 920 BC to 722 BC, while there was a kingdom called by that name. This kingdom, and its Hebrew peoples, simply disappeared after the Assyrian conquest because of intermarriage and assimilation. The result is the people called the Samaritans (already from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah). Therefore, anyone of Hebrew lineage in the post-exilic period was necessarily from the Kingdom of Judah (Ioudaia in Greek, and Iudæa in Latin), regardless of where they settled--and they did settle throughout the whole known world, as we can later see from the Book of Acts. A Judean (or Jew) was a descendant of the ancient Hebrew people of Israel which became reduced to the tribes that made up the southern Kingdom of Judah--whether they lived in Jerusalem, Nazareth, or Tarsus of Cilicia.

Okay, after seeing this, I think I'm going to start a basic Bible knowledge class in my parish. Undecided

-Julio
« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 10:11:39 AM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2005, 11:52:19 AM »

Thank you Augustine - very elegantlhy put.  Thank you Julio - saved me a lot of typing.    Bp Kallistos's translation of Holy Week uses Jews.  This discussion is being to sound like a disciplinary problem in an inner city school.   Teacher complains to Prinicipal about boy throwing a chair at him.  Lib Principal answers: Did it hit you? (true story).. Oh for the days of "hairy legs and beer", of Joan Sunderland, Barry Tuckwell, Rolf Harris, Bill Kerr and Crocodile Dundee... We only have Steve left (she's a beauty). 
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2005, 08:05:51 PM »

julio,
\
It seems that I am not the only one who disagrees with you on the meaning of "Ioudei". Here's another one:
http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm
Quote
"Apart from the question of anachronism, there is also the question of a faulty reading of the New Testament text. Who are the "Jews" that are referred to in the gospels? Jesus was a Jew by religion, as were most of his disciples. But the Greek word that is translated into English as "Jews" is actually "Ioudei", and could just as easily (and in many contexts more accurately) be translated as "Judaeans". Jesus and his disciples were Jews, but not Judaeans. They were not normally resident in Judaea, but in Galilee, which was under a different political authority, and they spoke with a different accent (Mt 26:73). When Jesus debated with the Judaean Pharisees ( Jn 8 ), they said he was a Samaritan (Jn 8:48). Samaritans were regarded as heretics. The woman of Samaria recognised Jesus as a Jew (Jn 4:9) and Jesus does not dispute this. Surely if John were antisemitic, and intending to promote antisemitism, he would have suppressed such evidence? The Samaritan woman also recognises the theological differences (Jn 4:20). By calling Jesus a "Samaritan", therefore, the Judaean Pharisees imply that he is a heretic, and perhaps his northern accent sounds to them as though it could just as easily be Samaritan as Galilean (Samaria was geographically between Judaea and Galilee, and Jesus had passed through it on his way to Judaea).

I believe that those who maintain that the Gospel according to St John is "antisemitic" have failed to distinguish between Jews and Judaeans, and that by assuming that "Ioudei" meant "Jews" in every case, they have read antisemitism into the text where none exists.

I do not dispute that some of these passages of scripture have later been used by Christians, including some Orthodox Christians, to justify antisemitism, but I believe that those who have done so were mistaken, and were misinterpreting the text. So I believe that using the text to justify antisemitism is twisting it, whether it is done by those promoting antisemitism, or by those promoting antiChristianity by claiming that Christianity is inherently antisemitic. "
Strange that someone who doesn't come from a backwater like Australia should say the same thing, eh observer?

By the way, some other errors in your last post:
its "elegantly" not "eleganthly"
"beginning" not "being"
"Sutherland" not "Sunderland"

Perhaps english is not your first language? And if it is, why should anyone listen to your opinion about a word in an ancient language when you can't even get your own language right? Wink

« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 08:26:43 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2005, 08:17:13 PM »

Okay, after seeing this, I think I'm going to start a basic Bible knowledge class in my parish. Undecided

"My brethren, let not many of you be teachers, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. " (James 3:1-2)ÂÂ  Wink

So tell me Julio, was Christ a Judean (Gk: "Ioudei")? Even when the Gospels tell you that He is not? And even when the Judeans ("Ioudei")ÂÂ  themselves in the Gospel call Him a Samaritan (Gk "Samariti") in Jn 8:48 (which, by the way, He was not either)? So you insist that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a Judean when Nazareth is in Galilee?
 
Even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, you guys insist on holding on to heresies which support unchristian antisemetism............

What's the point?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 09:14:48 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2005, 09:41:03 PM »

"My brethren, let not many of you be teachers, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. " (James 3:1-2)ÂÂ  Wink

But you see, by the Apostle's standards I'm already on my way to greater condemnation, so I might as well make the most of it!

So tell me Julio, was Christ a Judean (Gk: "Ioudei")? Even when the Gospels tell you that He is not? And even when the Judeans ("Ioudei")ÂÂ  themselves in the Gospel call Him a Samaritan (Gk "Samariti") in Jn 8:48 (which, by the way, He was not either)? So you insist that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a Judean when Nazareth is in Galilee?

Yes, Christ was a Jew (Ioudaios), because as I explained earlier, of the 12 tribes of Israel, only the two tribes that made up the Kingdom of Judah remained, and spread all over the known world. Therefore, any Jew in the world then was either from the tribe of Judah (like Christ) or the tribe of Benjamin (like St Paul). That he was called a Samaritan and was told he had a demon in St John ch. 8 is simply a not-so-veiled malicious accusation by the Pharisees precisely to the effect that he was neither a Jew nor legitimate, but as you yourself pointed out, these accusations are false. And while Nazareth is in Galilee, Jesus family was Judean (=Jewish). After all, at the time of the census, Joseph had to bring Mary his wife to Bethlehem to be registered, because he was of the house and lineage of David--that is to say, from the tribe of Judah (cfr St Luke 2). So, quite plainly, the Holy Gospels do not say that the Lord was not a Ioudaios. What an idea!

Even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, you guys insist on holding on to heresies which support unchristian antisemtism............

I can assure that, of all the people in the world, I'm not the one who would promote anti-semitism, unchristian or otherwise! My friends would laugh. Wink

--Julio
« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 09:45:24 PM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2005, 09:49:53 PM »

Julio,

Look at John 4:45:
So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also had gone to the feast.

(οτε ουν ηλθεν εις την γαλιλαιαν εδεξαντο αυτον οι γαλιλαιοι παντα εωρακοτες οσα εποιησεν εν ιεροσολυμοις εν τη εορτη και αυτοι γαρ ηλθον εις την εορτην)


So the Galileans went to Jeusalem for the Feast, so clearly they are Jews. Why doesn't St. John call them "Ioudei" in his Gospel?

Can you not just admit that "Ioudei" and "Ibrei" are not synonyms in the Gospel?

« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 09:50:35 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2005, 09:52:53 PM »


Can you not just admit that "Ioudei" and "Ibrei" are not synonyms in the Gospel?




They are not synonym.

Neither is SERB and SLAV, but Serbs ARE Slavs.
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2005, 10:02:09 PM »



They are not synonym.

Neither is SERB and SLAV, but Serbs ARE Slavs.

Excellent!
So when someone says that the progroms in Russia show slavs to be antisemetic, then they do not mean the Serbs are antisemetic- just as when the Gospel says that the Judaeans killed Christ, it does not mean the Jews in Galilee or Samaria did.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2005, 10:03:16 PM »

Sorry brother, it is not that simple, this is why:


What I am trying to point out is major flaw in your argument OZG.

For example:

Lets swap the terms for a second.


Serbs are Ioudei and
Slavs are Ibrei.

Now, Serbs killed Jesus and some people said that Slavs killed Him. Are they wrong? No! In that case Slavs did kill Jesus. (Now if you scale it down onto the Territory and populace of Israel (Ioudea) and the fact that Hebrews are much more connected that Slavs, saying that Ioudei killed Christ and not Ibrei is just not the case. Just as all Ibrei were sons of Abraham and old Israel, so they are (all) guilty of death of Christ.

Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 05, 2005, 10:14:03 PM »

Sorry brother, it is not that simple, this is why:


What I am trying to point out is major flaw in your argument OZG.

For example:

Lets swap the terms for a second.


Serbs are Ioudei and
Slavs are Ibrei.

Now, Serbs killed Jesus and some people said that Slavs killed Him. Are they wrong? No!

Using this analogy, the Serbs are antisemetic and support progroms against Jews, since the "Slavs" persecuted the Jews in Russia and are guilty of Jewish blood.
If you support progroms as this analogy indicates, then what more can I say to you?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 10:16:32 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #46 on: July 05, 2005, 10:14:28 PM »

So, what ozgeorge is saying is that all Ioudei are Ibrei, but not all Ibrei are Ioudei.  Ioudei are thus a subset of Ibrei.  It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe to all Ibrei the actions of the Ioudei.

Am I following this correctly?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2005, 10:15:54 PM »

So, what ozgeorge is saying is that all Ioudei are Ibrei, but not all Ibrei are Ioudei.  Ioudei are thus a subset of Ibrei.  It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe to all Ibrei the actions of the Ioudei.

Am I following this correctly?

Yes
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2005, 10:32:24 PM »

Using this analogy, the Serbs are antisemetic and support progroms against Jews, since the "Slavs" persecuted the Jews in Russia and are guilty of Jewish blood.
If you support progroms as this analogy indicates, then what more can I say to you?

And I warn you all- Our Lord said: "With whatever measuring stick you measure, you shall be measured."
If you do not wish to be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for the murder and persecution of Jews in the Russian progroms, do not say "The Jews killed Christ and are all guilty of His Blood."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2005, 11:05:06 PM »

But dear bother (before you quote yourself again), you are again making a very wrong assumption.

Quote

Using this analogy, the Serbs are antisemetic and support pogroms against Jews, since the "Slavs" persecuted the Jews in Russia and are guilty of Jewish blood.


Who said anything about SUPPORTING POGROMS against the Jews?

If a Jew says that Slavs killed Jews, is he wrong? No! Slavs did kill Jews! No body is trying to say or run away from it.

Now, the questions is which Slavs?

Orthodox or Communist or Slavs of Peter the (not so) Great...

Germans killed Jews.

BUT just because one group of people did it in one time, does not mean that every one of that group of people SUPPOrTED that in ALL times. That is just stupid. That is a very wrong assumption without any base and logic.  And that is where you are making a mistake.



You can not say that in the days of that Pascha only Ioudeans were in Jerusalem. Or that only Ioudeans were in the court saying "His blood on us and our children". or to say that only Ioudeans were members of the Council (Sinadrion). That is not just wrong but utterly illogical.



Remember that we are having this argument because the people attack the Church for being Anti-Semite. Is Church Antisemitic? If it is, so be it. That means that Lord is antisemitic because Lord is the Head of the Church.

Let me make clear that I do not think that Church is Anti-Semitic as many here claim.
Also, I am fully aware that many ARE anti-Zionist (or whatever that means and has meant before the actual term, which is relatively new).

Separation on Ioudeans and others, is just like saying: Oh but only Bavarian Germans did all the killing! That is just illogical.




What are you afaraid of?

Is it such a sin to say it as it is.


Jews were for the first 300 years the biggest reason for treason of the Christians and their murder!
So, that is why all the early Fathers did not like them very much.

I can see some future OzGeorges and JMells arguing that Orthodox Church is Anti-muslim, just because media of the future might consider all muslems to be cool people who love peace. Or anti-atheist. Or anti-communist.... Tough luck. WE ARE ANTI-all of those.

I do not see any logic in what is going on here.


Suddenly, you people are bigger Jews then Jews!
How come?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2005, 11:08:34 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2005, 11:31:28 PM »

If a Jew says that Slavs killed Jews, is he wrong? No! Slavs did kill Jews! No body is trying to say or run away from it.
Now, the questions is which Slavs?

Orthodox or Communist or Slavs of Peter the (not so) Great...
Actually it was Orthodox Slavs, and it was a late as the reign of St. Tsar Nicholas II. And why do you make this disctinction here, yet ignore the distinction the Gospel makes between "Ibrei" and "Ioudei"? To whom did St. Paul address his letter to the Hebrews? To the Ioudei or to the Ibrei?ÂÂ  If the Apostles make this distinction- why do you insist that it should not be made?

BUT just because one group of people did it in one time, does not mean that every one of that group of people SUPPOrTED that in ALL times. That is just stupid.
Is it? Then why do 'augustine' and 'observer' use the quote from the Gospel where the people say: "His blood be upon us and upon our children" to "prove" that the Jews are guilty of the blood of Christ? Are you saying they are stupid? I don't think they are stupid, they are just using a stupid misreading of Scripture.


You can not say that in the days of that Pascha only Ioudeans were in Jerusalem. Or that only Ioudeans were in the court saying "His blood on us and our children". or to say that only Ioudeans were members of the Council (Sinadrion). That is not just wrong but utterly illogical.
The people who cried this out represent us all. His blood is upon us all and upon all our children. This is the Orthodox understanding.

Remember that we are having this argument because the people attack the Church for being Anti-Semite. Is Church Antisemitic? If it is, so be it. That means that Lord is antisemitic because Lord is the Head of the Church.
No, it would mean that this "Lord" is Antichrist since since Christ was born semetic. The Church and it's Head are not antisemetic because neither blames the Jews for the Death of Christ.

What are you afaraid of?
That this heresy is used even today by people like the neo-fascist skinheads in Orthodox countries to persecute Jews, and you wish to perpetuate it- even in non-Orthodox countires. See http://antirasizm.ru/english_rep_009.doc

Jews were for the first 300 years the biggest reason for treason of the Christians and their murder!
See what I mean about perpetuating error? It was the Gentile Pagans of the Roman Empire who persecuted the vast majority of the early Christians.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 12:07:54 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2005, 12:21:48 AM »

LOL it is great how you twist my words and implying what I did not say.

I said if a JEW asked if the Slavs killed Jews, he could say YES. I am NOT making any distinction's (I was just thinking about Stalin that killed more Jews (and Slavs) than any other "Slavic" Leader - Stalin was not a slav, however his machinery was-mostly).


Never-the-less, it is a fair observation to say that SLAVS did KILL JEWS!

But at the same time your notion that all Slavs in all times are guilty of it is just wrong.

Quote
The people who cried this out represent us all. His blood is upon us all and upon all our children. This is the Orthodox understanding.
This is NOT Orthodox teaching. I am sorry. I do not care what anyone says, this is not correct. Who ever says so, is not saying the truth.
This verse (Mt XXVII, 25.) is never to be used as a justification for persecution of the Jews. The Jews were elected to represent all, and HIS BLOOD is on us all.
So, your understanding of Orthodox Theology in this matter is wrong. (as it is your statement that "this is the Orthodox understanding").
And understanding of all who see it that way (that all Jews are guilty of it IN ALL TIMES), is just wrong.




Again,
whoever thinks that all Jews are guilty of blood of Christ in all times is wrong.
Whoever thinks that all Slavs are guilty of blood of Jews in all times is wrong.
Whoever think that only Judeans killed Christ and not all Jews is wrong. (Now, note, please, that I am talking of one moment in time not in all eternity- when I say all Jews I mean those who obviously rejected Christ IN THAT TIME; in the time of rejection).
Whoever thinks that Jews should be persecuted for-ever because they are Jews is wrong.
Whoever thinks that Orthodox Church is anti-semitic is wrong.
Whoever thinks that Zionist (militant Jews) are not wrong is wrong. They are.



OzGerorge, I agree that many people have a wrong view of the Jews based on a wrong treatment of Scripture and Fathers. That is why I said  (to Serbian Patriot) that I can not follow him there as small-minded people tend to take things the wrong way. They always do.

At the same time, saying that all Jews are guilty forever, and all Slavs are guilty forever is wrong. But also, saying that Jews did not kill Christ, and that Slavs did not kill Jews is wrong. There just can not be separation of Russians from Slavs and/or Judeans from Jews. That is illogical, They are Slavs/Jews.

As far as the history is concerned, I really do not know, from what I read (which is not much) I have to conclude that Jews (the ones that were opposed to Mesiah) were the ones that were running around and accusing Christians of being Christian. As this was enough for procecution/death, one has to say that Jews were the reason for the treason. Most pagans could not make a difference between a Jew and a Christian. But, I really do not know enough to support this. This is what I know and it does not preclude me from being ORTHODOX JEW (and I mean this to the fullest term possible).


Having said all this, I really do not wish to argue with you, so you don't have to think of me as a Skinhead or a Nazi.
Sick people will (as the members of these nacional-socialist groups are) will take whatever little straw they can find to justify their hate. I am aware (all too well) of this hate.

All I am trying to say that in a wish to safeguard one thing you are going into other end of using the wrong analogy.

We all did things that we are not proud of. The only way forward is to admit it and do what comes after.
But, in doing so, I will never (not for any price) admit that the Church is anti-semitic. That is just a blasphemy.
Everything else, yes. Wrong oppinion of certain people, even Saints, yes.
But Church as a whole NEVER.

I am sorry. I hope that you will understand that I am not really supporting any of the more extreme views (and your view I see as extreme-LOL). I am just trying to say it as it is (that is as I see it).

For better or for worse, we did what we did and using degenerative and sectarian analogies won't help any of us.

God bless.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 12:33:18 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2005, 12:52:53 AM »

But at the same time your notion that all Slavs in all times are guilty of it is just wrong.
I didn't say this at all- God forbid!
I was simply using the same analogy you used. I was debunking the notion that all Jews are responsible for killing Christ (just as all Slavs are not responsible for the progroms.) What I was saying is that if you blame all Jews for the Death of Christ for the simple fact that they are Jews, then you must also blame all Slavs for the progroms fo the simple fact that they are Slavs- "with what measuring stick you measure, you shall be measured."

This is NOT Orthodox teaching. I am sorry. I do not care what anyone says, this is not correct. Who ever says so, is not saying the truth.
This verse (Mt XXVII, 25.) is never to be used as a justification for persecution of the Jews. The Jews were elected to represent all, and HIS BLOOD is on us all.
ummmmm....
can you tell me the difference between saying "His blood is upon us all" and "HIS BLOOD is on us all"?
and while you're at it, could you please explain the difference between saying: "The people who cried this out represent us all" and "The Jews were elected to represent all"
I don't follow you as to why my statement is "NOT" the Orthodox teaching.......you just said exactley the same thing.

Do all Serbs become this irrational in the heat of debate? Wink


« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 01:14:40 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2005, 02:45:35 AM »


I am really sorry, I misread what you have said (regarding Mt. XXVII,25.) It is my fault. I apologise.

To that end, I dare to say that I have to agree with you on the point of US ALL (as all-Humans, not just all-Jews)

Orthodox Church clearly teaches that this verse is not to be used as a justification for persecution of the Jews.  That is, The Jews (of that time) are representing all of (sinful humans) and not ALL JEWS. But ALL HUMANS. That is why I am saying that teaching that Jews should be persecuted "based" on Mt XXVII, 25. is not Orthodox. If we are going to persecute anyone we should then persecute ALL HUMANITY.



I think that all those (whether Serbs, Russian, Germans, English, Greeks... or little green men) who think that ALL Jews in ALL times are guilty of mistakes of SOME, are wrong.



My main objection to your writting is not your oppinion in regard to Mt. XXVII, 25. (as I agree with that. Sorry again, I misread what you said).

My main objection with you is in separation of Judeans from Jews.
No Jew has the right to say:"Oh but only Judeans betrayed Christ; so Jews did not do it".
Same as no Slav can say:"Oh but only Russians killed Jews, so Slavs did not do it".

This is based on my view that this separation is illogical.



We have to be men and accept our guilt  and do what comes from it. I do not care if Swiss and Germans run like little girls and hide so that they would not have to pay reparation. If I did something I will admit it.
So, Jews have to admit that they were not friendly towards the Christians and Slavs have to admit that they were not friendly towards the Jews. Come fire or water, that is what happened.

I am sorry it is not my fault, but my ancestors did do bad things, and here I ask for forgiveness. I have no problem saying this. We all did mistakes. Terrible ones. Please forgive.

Only forgiven we can approach un-approachable. Forgive us our sins as we forgive... We can not be forgiven until we ask for it. With God as with humans.

Slavs and Jews are not that much different (Jews only cook better). I am sure that in the future Orthodox Church will again have great Patriarchs of Jerusalem who are of Israel. Why be so stupid and be petty?





Again, OzG, I am sorry for misreading what you said, but also there is that thing I can not agree with. So, there you go. LOL
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2005, 04:25:27 AM »

No Jew has the right to say:"Oh but only Judeans betrayed Christ; so Jews did not do it".

Was Pontius Pilate a Jew? He thought Christ was innocent yet still had Him scourged and crucified. Or do you buy his washing his hands as making him innocent? Much like a child's belief that crossing your fingers makes it not a lie.
Were the soldiers who wrapped Christ in false purple, placed a crown of thorns on His head and a reed in His hand Jews?
Did the Jews bring crucifixion to Palestine?
Was St. Longinus the centurion a Jew?

And again I have to ask, if by "Ioudei" St. John means "Jews" in the Gospel, how come he uses the word "Gallilei" ("Gallileans") in the same Gospel to refer to the Jews in Gallilee (John 4:45)?


« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 06:51:32 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2005, 06:58:27 AM »

I tried to write all and in order, OZG, but after half an hour of writing, I lost the cool and got so upset.. so, I deleted it.

I am sorry I mixed up into this argument.

I really hate when I write page and a half and people take out 2 words and base their whole answer on those, and in it miss the point totally.



Again, sorry and please forget.
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2005, 07:37:37 AM »

sin_vladimirov,

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian





« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 07:41:31 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2005, 08:33:23 AM »

Yes, Christ was a Jew (Ioudaios), because as I explained earlier, of the 12 tribes of Israel, only the two tribes that made up the Kingdom of Judah remained, and spread all over the known world. Therefore, any Jew in the world then was either from the tribe of Judah (like Christ) or the tribe of Benjamin (like St Paul).

Julio,
What we are talking about is the Gospel's use of the word "Ioudei", and it's intended meaning. It cannot simply be translated as "Jew" in every instance. And when it is translated as "Jew" when it shouldn't be translated as "Jew"- we get nonsense.
For example, the Koine version of John 7:1 reads:
"και μετα ταυτα περιεπατει [ο] iIσους εν τη γαλιλαια ου γαρ ηθελεν εν τη ιουδαια περιπατειν οτι εζητουν αυτον οι ιουδαιοι αποκτειναι"

Which the King James version translates as:

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him."

But if Jesus walked in Galilee- He was already walking "In Jewry"- the Galilaeans were Jews!
Are you seriously telling me that the King James translation of this verse makes more sense in the context than translating the verse as:

"After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Judea because the Judaeans sought to kill Him." ?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 08:35:19 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2005, 09:20:51 AM »

sin_vladimirov,

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian



Ooooo what can I say to that....

Logged

Lord have mercy.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #59 on: July 06, 2005, 12:15:50 PM »

So, what ozgeorge is saying is that all Ioudei are Ibrei, but not all Ibrei are Ioudei.  Ioudei are thus a subset of Ibrei.  It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe to all Ibrei the actions of the Ioudei.

Thanks for this, Veniamin!  This helps me understand what OzG is saying a little better, and points out what the conundrum here is.

OzG, do you understand that, in Greek, the only way to say both "Jew" and "Judean" is ÂÂ Ἰουδαῖος, and that therefore not all of its New Testament uses refer to the people of Judea? (This is, in fact, the case of the majority of its uses.)ÂÂ Also, you seem unaware of the uneven use of the term in some New Testament books—particularly, the Gospel of St John, which you quote so often. The text you brought up, St John 7:1-2) is an excellent example of this:

Καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ  Ἰησοῦς μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ  Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ  Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν  Ἰουδαίων ἡ σκηνοπηγία.

And after these things, Jesus went about in Galilee, for he did not wish to go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.  Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was near.

Are you seriously telling me that the King James translation of this verse makes more sense in the context than translating the verse as:

"After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Judea because the Judaeans sought to kill Him." ?

For a start, I'd lose the King James Version. The Greek text says "in Judea" rather than "in Jewry", and this is opposed to "in Galilee". But your proposed translation is equally untenable.

Firstly you have τῇ  Ἰουδαίᾳ (tÄ“ Ioudaia), clearly the name of the region.  But then you have that the  Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) seeking to kill him.  And then you have the Feast of the Booths described as being of the  Ἰουδαίων (Ioudaiōn).  In St John's Gospel, οἱ  Ἰουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi) is many times a technical term referring to the leaders of the Jewish people (chief priests, scribes and elders, as they're described elsewhere [cfr. St Mark 8:31]—the Jerusalem contingent).  That they, in particular, antagonized Jesus, is recognized by other the Evangelists: for instance, St Mark records that the source of his opposition in Galilee was the stirrings of the Jerusalem leaders (cfr. 3:22; 7:1-2), and that they were the conspirators in the city itself (cfr. 11:18).  But there's yet another use of the word, also reflected in these two measly verses:  Ἰουδαίων (Ioudaiōn) as the mass of the (Jewish) people.  Clearly, the Feast of Booths and the Passover were not strictly Judean affairs, but feasts of the whole Jewish people (you yourself quoted St John 4:45); accordingly, they are described as "the Jews' Feast of Booths" (cfr. above) and the "Passover of the Jews" (τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; cfr. St John 2:13; 11:55).

Can you not just admit that "Ioudei" and "Ibrei" are not synonyms in the Gospel?

Well, I do have a certain resistance to admit things that are patently false, but that's not the statement that I'd make, either.

Frankly, I don't understand why such linguistic nonsense must be aduced to defend the Church from antisemitism (not "antisemetism, by the way). After all, when the holy Apostle Peter said to the crowd "you have killed the Autor of life" (τὸν δὲ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκτείνατε, Acts 3:15), he addressed them as "Men of Israel" (Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, Acts 3:12), and not as  Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi). (And don't forget that these saving events took place in Jerusalem during two of the highest festivals of the Law, Passover and Pentecost, for which were gathered in the City "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews [Ἰουδαῖοί, Jews by birth] and proselytes [προσήλυτοι, converts], Cretans and Arabians", Acts 2:9-11). But to cry "hate speech" there would miss the point entirely, for St Peter had already said to the Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται (cfr. Acts 2:22-24):

τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔκδοτον λαβόντες, διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε· ὃν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνέστησε λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ.

This [Jesus], delivered according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the Law. But God raised him up, loosing him from the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Jews and Gentiles (that is, all humanity!) share joint responsibility for killing Author of life (in ignorance, cfr. 3:17). But do not miss that this was according to the definite plan of God, which was, ultimately, to raise him from the dead. This is precisely what we sing in the Resurrectional Apolytikion of the First Tone:

Τοῦ λίθου σφραγισθέντος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ στρατιωτῶν φυλασσόντων τὸ ἄχραντόν σου σῶμα, ἀνέστης τριήμερος Σωτήρ, δωρούμενος τῷ κόσμῳ τὴν ζωήν. Διὰ τοῦτο αἱ Δυνάμεις τῶν ουρανῶν, εβόων σοι Ζωοδότα. Δόξα τῇ Ἀναστάσει σου, Χριστέ· δόξα τῇ βασιλείᾷ σου, δόξα τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ σου, μόνε Φιλάνθρωπε.

When the stone had been sealed by the Jews, and the soldiers where guarding Thine incorrupt Body, Thou didst rise on the third day, O Savior, granting life to the world. Wherefore, the Powers of the Heavens cried out to Thee, O Giver of Life: Glory to Thy Resurrection, O Christ! Glory to Thy kingdom! Glory to Thy dispensation, O only Lover of mankind!

See how we sing that the Jews sealed the stone and the Gentile soldiers watched the tomb! But, this being according to God's plan, the realization of God's purpose could not be held back: Christ rose on the third day. This is the saving plan of God (οἰκονομία) which we glorify.

--Julio
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 03:07:54 PM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 06, 2005, 05:51:41 PM »

 Undecided So you are saying the KJV version is a more accurate translation of John 4:45

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 06, 2005, 06:08:42 PM »

Frankly, I don't understand why such linguistic nonsense must be aduced to defend the Church from antisemitism (not "antisemetism, by the way). After all, when the holy Apostle Peter said to the crowd "you have killed the Autor of life" (τὸν δὲ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκτείνατε, Acts 3:15), he addressed them as "Men of Israel" (Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, Acts 3:12), and not as  Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi). (And don't forget that these saving events took place in Jerusalem during two of the highest festivals of the Law, Passover and Pentecost, for which were gathered in the City "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews [Ἰουδαῖοί, Jews by birth] and proselytes [προσήλυτοι, converts], Cretans and Arabians", Acts 2:9-11). But to cry "hate speech" there would miss the point entirely, for St Peter had already said to the Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται (cfr. Acts 2:22-24):

τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔκδοτον λαβόντες, διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε· ὃν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνέστησε λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ.

This [Jesus], delivered according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the Law. But God raised him up, loosing him from the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
But where and at which Passover did St Peter say this? Wasn't it in Judea just after the Passover where Christ was killed? Wasn't he therefore speaking to the exact same crowds which cried "cucify Him! Crucify Him!'? So These particular "Men of Israel" were directly involved.

And this is supposed to prove that "Ioudei" means "Jew" in every instance in the Gospel?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #62 on: July 06, 2005, 06:40:49 PM »

Undecided So you are saying the KJV version is a more accurate translation of John 4:45

Um, wow. I might regret asking, but could you perhaps explain how would such a thing comes even remotely close to my point? Because if that is really what you think my post was about, then it's not much discussing these matters with you, is it?

But where and at which Passover did St Peter say this? Wasn't it in Judea just after the Passover where Christ was killed? Wasn't he therefore speaking to the exact same crowds which cried[:] "[Cr]ucify Him! Crucify Him!'? So These particular "Men of Israel" were directly involved.

Which is, again, why I mentioned the following:

Quote
And don't forget that these saving events took place in Jerusalem during two of the highest festivals of the Law, Passover and Pentecost, for which were gathered in the City "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews [Ἰουδαῖοί, Jews by birth] and proselytes [προσήλυτοι, converts], Cretans and Arabians", Acts 2:9-11.

Which means that the "exact same crowds which cried[:] '[Cr]ucify Him! Crucify Him!'" were made up not only of habitants of Judea, but of Jews from every corner of the then known world. And it is not strange that such a diverse group of people should be called  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“οι—after all, that was the common self-designation of Jews in the diaspora.

And this is supposed to prove that "Ioudei" means "Jew" in every instance in the Gospel?

No. What that's supposed to prove is that it was the whole people of Israel who, with the Gentiles, shared blame for "killing the Author of life" according to "the definite plan and foreknowledge of God". This is part of a section of my post which might actually be of interest to you, as it explains how these texts are not to be read antisemitically, and that this understanding is reflected in one of our more common liturgical hymns.

Also, perhaps in quickly scanning my post, you missed my brief discussion of St John 7:1-2, which uses the term  Ἰουδαῖος in two different ways, and which happen to be the more common uses of the term in the entire New Testament. Otherwise, you would not say that I'm arguing for a single meaning of the term in every instance—indeed, you might have even seen my remark that the term is used unevenly throughout. It is you, however, who seem to argue for understanding it to mean "Judean" every time, an approach which is exegetically odd, at best.

--Julio
« Last Edit: July 06, 2005, 07:02:29 PM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2005, 01:38:50 AM »

ozgeorge,

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Holy Friday liturgy? (I am asking this as a Jewish convert to Christianity.)

Marjorie
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 01:39:24 AM by Marjorie » Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2005, 03:44:32 AM »

ozgeorge,

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Holy Friday liturgy? (I am asking this as a Jewish convert to Christianity.)

I find the english translations offensive to the extreme. Offensive not only to the Jews, but also to the Greeks for being a twisting of our language. Fortunately, I have never attended the Great and Holy Friday Liturgy in English, only in koine, and being the language I've worshipped in all my life, I have always understood "O bloodthirsty 'Ioudai', murderers of God" to refer to the Judaeans, much like we speak of the "Corinthians", or "Thessalonians" or "Phillipians", and I find it perplexing that given all these examples from Scriptures, english speaking Orthodox insist that "Judaeans" means "Jews". Why then do we have "Phillipians", "Corinthians" etc- why not just "Hellenes" or "Greeks"?

And they insist that there is no other word in Greek for "Jew", when there is an entire Epistle addressed to the "Ibraious" ("Hebrews").

Now can I ask you, as an Orthodox Christian, is it so "outlandish" to understand from John 4:45 for example, that Christ felt safer among the Galilaeans than among the Judaeans? Is it really "outlandish" of me to understand that what St. John is saying is that there was a difference between Galilaean Jews and Judaean Jews? Should I just go along with the "accepted" english translation which says Christ felt safer in Galilee rather than Judea because of the Jews (even though Galilee was also Jewish)?
Is it so "outlandish" that the KJV may have made an error, and this is what english speaking Orthodox insist on defending?

For Heaven's sake (literally), lets be logical! Look at how the KJV translates Thessalonians  2:14:
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:"St Paul is talking here to the Thessalonian Christians, whom he says are being persecuted by thieir countrymen, wouldn't it make more sense to understand St. Paul to mean that the Churchexs in Judaea are also being persecuted by their countrymen, i.e. the Judaeans? So that the passage should read:
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen[Ed, i.e, the Thessalonians] , even as they have of the Judaeans."

Or am I just stupid?

« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 04:27:12 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2005, 04:19:53 AM »

The only person here who is not seeing the absurdity of your statements is you.

I am sorry, I just have to come in again..

Are Athenians not Greeks?
Are Corinthians not Greeks?

To which Greeks do writers of NT refer when they are using the word (Ellin)?

Brother, Jews are all those who are of Israel, whether Galileans or Judeans or any of the Israel. There are all Jews.

Please, see what you are saying. You, in a wish to prove that Orthodox Church is right in her teaching, are saying complete stupidity when trying to separate Judeans from Jews.

What are Judeans and Galileans? Are the Arabs? Maybe Americans? No! They are Jews.
Jew is a Jew. Serb is a Serb. Slav is Slav. Greek is a Greek.

No Jew is bigger or better Jew just because he is from Galilea or Judea.
No Serb is bigger than any other Serb. Serb from Belgrade is same as Serb from Krusevac.
Are Athenians bigger Greeks than Corinthians? Or if Corinthians are Greeks does that mean that Athenians are not?

It is just amazing what you are saying. Simply.. you are wrong.

This is not question of anti-Semites anymore. You are trying to say that Judeans are not Jews or that Judeans are not as good Jews as any others! Listen to yourself.

It is an absurd.
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2005, 04:44:35 AM »

No Jew is bigger or better Jew just because he is from Galilea or Judea.
So the Galilaeans were just as Jewish as the Jews in Judaea? So why did Christ avoid Judaea "because of the Jews" if the Galilaean Jews were just as "Jewish"? (JOHN 7:1)
Please explain, because, as you say, I am being absurd and I need guidance here..... Wink
Which version would you like to use to explan John7:1 to me?

The King James Version:
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

The New King James Version:
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.

The New International Version:
After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there (i.e., in Judaea) were waiting to take his life.

Or the original Koine version:
και μετα ταυτα περιεπατει [ο] ιησους εν τη γαλιλαια ου γαρ ηθελεν εν τη ιουδαια περιπατειν οτι εζητουν αυτον οι ιουδαιοι αποκτειναI

Look at the two words I've put in bold in the Koine version. The first word means "Judaea" The second word is what everyone insists means "Jews". Do you notice something about the first five letters of these two words? When you are able to show me that "ιουδαιοι" cannot possibly mean "Judaeans", then you will have an argument against what I am saying.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 04:47:03 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2005, 04:57:44 AM »

This is not question of anti-Semites anymore. You are trying to say that Judeans are not Jews or that Judeans are not as good Jews as any others! Listen to yourself.

There is a HUGE difference between saying "The Jews killed Christ" and "Jews in Judaea (i.e, Judaeans) killed Christ". The latter is linguistically more accurate, and the former has been used to justify progroms, Kristallnacht, concentration camps, torture, dehumanization, gas chambers and the holocaust.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2005, 05:27:33 AM »

Brother, I use two New Testament translation:

First one is Translation of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church:
Jn. VII, 1. (Зачало XXV):
И послије тога хођаше Исус по Галилеји јер по Јудеји не хтједе да ходи, пошто тражаху Јудејци да га убију.
(Lit. translation: And after that walked Jesus over Galilee because over Judea not wanted to walk, because sought Judeans to him kill).

Second one is Translation of Dr. E. M. Charnic (late professor of the Faculty of Theology of Serbian Orthodox Church, Cathedra of Ellinic studies):
После тога ишао је Исус по Галилеји; по Јудеји, наиме, није хтео да иде, зато што су Јудејци тражили да га убију.
(Lit. translation: After that walked is Jesus over Galilee; over Judea, that is, not wanted to walk(go), because of Judeans sought to him kill).

As far as English Translation are concerned (I have OSB and ONT, but use them only for notes, as I find english language hard to understand and when it come to such important things... lot of words that I just do not now and do not use).



Now, If Judeans are not Jews. What are they?


Jew   (n.)
1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.
( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jews )

Jew.
Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=jews&x=13&y=15 )

Definition
Jew   
noun
a member of a race of people whose traditional religion is Judaism
( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42634&dict=CALD )
   
Jew
• noun a member of the people whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel.
— ORIGIN from the Hebrew form of the name ‘Judah’.
( http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jew?view=uk )




Quote
There is a HUGE difference between saying "The Jews killed Christ" and "Jews in Judaea (i.e, Judaeans) killed Christ". The latter is linguistically more accurate, and the former has been used to justify progroms, Kristallnacht, concentration camps, torture, dehumanization, gas chambers and the holocaust.

How many times do I have to say this?

I am not saying that I disagree with you on the point on this point in regard to anti-semitism.
Please, I never said that. I am a half Jew damn it. You are preaching to the choir.

I agree with you (did I not apologise in one of my posts EXACTLY because I misread your post and than I agreed with you on the point of Orthodox teaching in regard to Mt. 27, 25.? Tell me, please, did I not agree with you?

But, at the same time, you are making a mistake to separate Judeans from Jews. Judeans ARE Jews. As Athenians are Greeks. You can not separate! Judeans are Jews.

That is where I am saying that you are wrong. In that separation. I fully with you whenit comes to question of Mt. 27, 25. And Kristalnacht and Gas chambers and many other things.

I am just saying, that you are wrong, to separate Judeans from Jews. That is illogical. An apsurd. Judeans ARE Jews.
I am not saying, nor implying that Jews are guilty of blood of Christ. Even if I say that they killed Chirst, I am not saying that they are guilty of it (only them that is, or they are as guilty as any of us).

Again, you are not wrong in explanation in regard to guilt of the Jews. But you are wrong in separation of Judeans from Jews.

I do not speak english good enough, I am sorry, but I just can not think how I can say this more clearly.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 05:32:47 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2005, 06:06:42 AM »

Again, you are not wrong in explanation in regard to guilt of the Jews. But you are wrong in separation of Judeans from Jews.

Let me explain further.
The Corinthians were Greeks. But the Corinthians were known for thier licentious revelry and debauchery, so much so that there developed the verb in Greek "To Corinthize" meaning "to act with licentious debauchery".
Similarly, the Greeks on the Island of Lesbos were known for their women who committed fornication with other women, so even 500 years B.C., the word "Lesbian" meant the same thing in Greek as it does in english today.
The Athenians were also Greek. But Athens was a centre for Philosophy, and was full of Philosophers, so "Athenian" meant "one who philosophizes" as it does in the ancient Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos:
"Rejoice thou who showest forth philosophers fools, rejoice, thou who provest logicians illogical....rejoice thou who breakest the webs of the Athenians...".

Yes, the Corinthians, the Lesbians and Athenians are all Greeks, but a "Corinthian" attends wild drunken orgies, a "Lesbian" is a woman who has sexual intercourse with women, and an "Athenian" get's lost in philosophy.

Do you see perhaps one reason why the Gospel refers to the "Ibraious" ("Jews, Hebrews") living in Judaea as "Judaeans"? May the Evangelists perhaps have meant that they (The Judaeans) were somehow different to Jews in Galilee? The Jews in Galilee did not want to kill Christ, yet the Jews in Judaea did.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 06:15:57 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2005, 06:30:33 AM »

LOL, that is fine, I assume that Jews in Judea were not nice people. Neither were Nazarene Jews according to many. Never-the-less, they are all Jews. And there can not be any separation between them.

Lord Jesus Christ was Judean. And He was a Jew. St. Peter who was Galilean was not bigger Jew than Lord or St. Simon the Canaanite (one of the 12). They were all Jews. St. Paul was of Tarsus in Cilicia, he was a Jew. They were all Jews. And saying that Lord was less Jew because He was a Judean (if we take your argument into account) is just wrong.

No-body until now (that I have ever heard of) made, ever, this kind of argument.
Brother, it is just wrong.

All Jews are Jews if they are Jews and none of them is bigger Jew than any other.

Your analogy and arguments are wrong and can not be used. It is illogical.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 06:32:16 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2005, 06:45:31 AM »

No-body until now (that I have ever heard of) made, ever, this kind of argument.
Brother, it is just wrong.

You must have missed the link in my post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6562.msg85986#msg85986

Anyway, forget this for now and turn on the ABC news- London has had a series of terrorist attacks- the Metro is closed......
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2005, 07:11:07 AM »

And they insist that there is no other word in Greek for "Jew", when there is an entire Epistle addressed to the "Ibraious" ("Hebrews").

Yes, of course. That's the way to say "Hebrew". The way to say "Jew" is  Ἰουδαῖος. That isn't really very heard to grasp, one would think.

Is it so "outlandish" that the KJV may have made an error, and this is what english speaking Orthodox insist on defending?

What is outlandish is your claim that  Ἰουδαῖος should consistently be translated "Judean", blatantly disregarding the semantic domain of the word, and the extent and variety of its uses in the New Testament.

Or am I just stupid?

I shouldn't think so, but you are, at the very least, unwilling to grapple with any linguistic and exegetical arguments whatever!

So the Galilaeans were just as Jewish as the Jews in Judaea? So why did Christ avoid Judaea "because of the Jews" if the Galilaean Jews were just as "Jewish"? (JOHN 7:1)

Once again:

For a start, I'd lose the King James Version. The Greek text says "in Judea" rather than "in Jewry", and this is opposed to "in Galilee". But your proposed translation is equally untenable.

Firstly you have τῇ  Ἰουδαίᾳ (tÄ“ Ioudaia), clearly the name of the region.  But then you have that the  Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) seeking to kill him.  And then you have the Feast of the Booths described as being of the  Ἰουδαίων (Ioudaiōn).  In St John's Gospel, οἱ  Ἰουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi) is many times a technical term referring to the leaders of the Jewish people (chief priests, scribes and elders, as they're described elsewhere [cfr. St Mark 8:31]—the Jerusalem contingent).  That they, in particular, antagonized Jesus, is recognized by other the Evangelists: for instance, St Mark records that the source of his opposition in Galilee was the stirrings of the Jerusalem leaders (cfr. 3:22; 7:1-2), and that they were the conspirators in the city itself (cfr. 11:18).  But there's yet another use of the word, also reflected in these two measly verses:  Ἰουδαίων (Ioudaiōn) as the mass of the (Jewish) people.  Clearly, the Feast of Booths and the Passover were not strictly Judean affairs, but feasts of the whole Jewish people (you yourself quoted St John 4:45); accordingly, they are described as "the Jews' Feast of Booths" (cfr. above) and the "Passover of the Jews" (τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; cfr. St John 2:13; 11:55).



There is a HUGE difference between saying "The Jews killed Christ" and "Jews in Judaea (i.e, Judaeans) killed Christ".

Once again (and this is the third time!):

And don't forget that these saving events took place in Jerusalem during two of the highest festivals of the Law, Passover and Pentecost, for which were gathered in the City "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews [Ἰουδαῖοί, Jews by birth] and proselytes [προσήλυτοι, converts], Cretans and Arabians", Acts 2:9-11.

Which means that the "exact same crowds which cried[:] '[Cr]ucify Him! Crucify Him!'" were made up not only of habitants of Judea, but of Jews from every corner of the then known world. And it is not strange that such a diverse group of people should be called  Ἰουδαῖοι—after all, that was the common self-designation of Jews in the diaspora.


I mean, seriously!

--Julio
Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2005, 07:25:24 AM »

Which means that the "exact same crowds which cried[:] '[Cr]ucify Him! Crucify Him!'" were made up not only of habitants of Judea, but of Jews from every corner of the then known world. And it is not strange that such a diverse group of people should be called  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“οι—after all, that was the common self-designation of Jews in the diaspora.[/i]

Julio,
Firstly, please note- London has been attacked by terrorists- please pray.
Secondly, where does it say that the the crowd who cried "Crucify Him!" were  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“οι? Not one Synoptic Gospel uses this word to describe the crowd Pilate addressed and which cried out "crucify Him!".  Why do you insist that they were Ἰουδαῖοι? The Synoptic Gospels call then "The people", "the crowds/mob", but never Ἰουδαῖοι.

In th Johanine Gospel, Pilate Adresses the Ἰουδαῖοι, and when he asks "Shall I crucify your King" it is the "chief priests" who reply.
I wonder.....an agenda?

Could an analogy be that both the Phanar and ROCOR are Orthodox- but are they the same "type" of Orthodox?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 07:44:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2005, 08:03:10 AM »

Firstly, please note- London has been attacked by terrorists- please pray.

Duly noted.

Secondly, where does it say that the the crowd who cried "Crucify Him!" were  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“οι? Not one Synoptic Gospel uses this word to describe the crowd Pilate addressed and which cried out "crucify Him!".  Why do you insist that they were Ἰουδαῖοι? The Synoptic Gospels call then "The people", "the crowds/mob", but never Ἰουδαῖοι.

A considerable change of tune in your part, as you earlier argued exactly the opposite:

But where and at which Passover did St Peter say this? Wasn't it in Judea just after the Passover where Christ was killed? Wasn't he therefore speaking to the exact same crowds which cried "cucify Him! Crucify Him!'? So These particular "Men of Israel" were directly involved.

But I digress. Again, and this is the fourth time:

"Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews [Ἰουδαῖοί, Jews by birth] and proselytes [προσήλυτοι, converts], Cretans and Arabians", Acts 2:9-11.

Note, of course, the use of the term Ἰουδαῖοί (clearly a religious term, as it is opposed to προσήλυτοι) only a few clauses later than καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν [....] Ἰουδαίαν.

In th Johanine Gospel, Pilate Adresses the Ἰουδαῖοι, and when he asks "Shall I crucify your King" it is the "chief priests" who reply.

And this is hard proof that you're really not reading my posts, because I've argued before that:

Quote
In St John's Gospel, οἱ  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“οι (hoi Ioudaioi) is many times a technical term referring to the leaders of the Jewish people (chief priests, scribes and elders, as they're described elsewhere [cfr. St Mark 8:31]—the Jerusalem contingent).  That they, in particular, antagonized Jesus, is recognized by other the Evangelists: for instance, St Mark records that the source of his opposition in Galilee was the stirrings of the Jerusalem leaders (cfr. 3:22; 7:1-2), and that they were the conspirators in the city itself (cfr. 11:18).

And that therefore, when St John 7:1 says that "the Jews sought to kill him", this refers to the leaders of the people.

I wonder.....an agenda?

Yeah, because I have all kinds of hate agendas. Next ones on my list are the lazy Hispanics.

Seriously, though, I have given you an explanation of the responsibility of Jews and Gentiles in "kill[ing] the Author of life" in ignorance, and pointed that this is an understanding embodied in one of our more common liturgical hymns. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, casting accusations of dark and hidden agendas simply because one dare point out that your reading of these texts is seriously flawed for a number of reasons. Look, I'm Puerto Rican, and I have no vested interests in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the like. My only agenda is to be a responsible Greek philologist and New Testament exegete, which happens to be my life's work.

--Julio
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 08:11:12 AM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2005, 08:14:51 AM »

Yeah, because I have all kinds of hate agendas. Next ones on my list are the lazy Hispanics.
Seriously, though, I have given you an explanation of the responsibility of Jews and Gentiles in "kill[ing] the Author of life" in ignorance, and pointed that this is an understanding embodied in one of our more common liturgical hymns. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, casting accusations of dark and hidden agendas simply because one dare point out that your reading of these texts is seriously flawed for a number of reasons. Look, I'm Puerto Rican, and I have no vested interests in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the like. My only agenda is to be a responsible Greek philologist and New Testament exegete, which happens to be my life's work.
No, no no, Julio
I am refering to an agenda on the part of St. John the Evangelist.


Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2005, 08:45:27 AM »

No, no no, Julio
I am refering to an agenda on the part of St. John the Evangelist.

Very well, then. I suppose that after such things as:

Even in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary (sic!), you guys insist on holding on to heresies which support unchristian antisemetism(sic)............

one is bound to regard with suspicion any such statements.

So, how about them, like, actual points of discussion?

--Julio
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 08:46:09 AM by Julio » Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2005, 08:55:30 AM »

And that therefore, when St John 7:1 says that "the Jews sought to kill him", this refers to the leaders of the people.

Hence my (very potted) analogy of the Phanar and ROCOR.

What I am saying is that the deliberate use of the word "Judaean" in many instances in the Gospel- that is "Judaean" as a resident of Judaea (which contains the Temple, the Chief Priests, the Sandhedrin), like "Corinthian", "Lesbian", "Athenian," the word "Judaean" associates particular Jews in a particular area as having a particular attitude/modus operandi. Much like we would say an "Athonite" monk is different to, say and Australian monk (and yes, we do have them Wink )
All I have been saying all along is that english speaking Orthodox may have missed something which Greek speaking (and from sin-vladimirov's post, Serbian speaking) Orthodox Christians who did not translate "Judaean" to read "Jew" have understood- that it refers to a particular people in a particular place.
In other words, the Judaeans (Jews in Judaea ) were the one's who had a political interest in maintaining a semblence of strict "orthodoxy" while in fact, they were simply maintaining positions of power through compromise- in fact, that they were not true Jews at all, since "the ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's manger; but Israel does not know Me, and the people has not regarded Me."(Isaiah 1:3, and see the Icon of the Nativity of Christ). But the ones who did know Him and did recognise Him came from Galilee and Samaria, not Judaea. He is rejected in Judaea, and no matter who shouted "Crucify Him!" they were incited to this by Judaeans (Mark 15:11).


Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2005, 09:08:51 AM »

So, how about them, like, actual points of discussion?


I'm not sure I am following you. What are you referring to as "them"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #79 on: July 07, 2005, 09:53:16 AM »

What I am saying is that the deliberate use of the word "Judaean" in many instances in the Gospel- that is "Judaean" as a resident of Judaea (which contains the Temple, the Chief Priests, the Sandhedrin), like "Corinthian", "Lesbian", "Athenian," the word "Judaean" associates particular Jews in a particular area as having a particular attitude/modus operandi. Much like we would say an "Athonite" monk is different to, say and Australian monk (and yes, we do have them Wink )

[....]

In other words, the Judaeans (Jews in Judaea ) were the one's who had a political interest in maintaining a sembl[a]nce of strict "orthodoxy" while in fact, they were simply maintaining positions of power through compromise- in fact, that they were not true Jews at all, since "the ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's manger; but Israel does not know Me, and the people has not regarded Me."(Isaiah 1:3, and see the Icon of the Nativity of Christ). But the ones who did know Him and did recognise Him came from Galilee and Samaria, not Judaea. He is rejected in Judaea, and no matter who shouted "Crucify Him!" they were incited to this by Judaeans (Mark 15:11).

And therein lieth thy chief problem in lexical semantics. You correctly realize that St John often uses  Ἰουδαῖοι in a specialized sense to refer to the Jerusalem contingent which opposed Jesus, and which was made up of chief priests, scribes and elders. But then you turn around and deduce that not only the chief priests, scribes, and elders are being referenced, but rather the all the residents of Judea, and then asign this misunderstanding of the specifically Johannine use to most every instance of the word Ἰουδαῖος in the entire New Testament. (These fallacies in interpretation are tagged "false assumptions about technical meaning" and "unwarranted restriction of semantic field" in D. A. Carson's handbook Exegetical Fallacies [Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996].)

Do note, by the way, that St Mark 15:11 refers to the chief priests as stirrers of opposition. If this was the Gospel of St John, it would most likely say οἱ  Ἰουδαῖοι (St John's terminus technicus for the leaders of the people), but since it is not, it simply calls them οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. Also, it goes without saying that the Lord also had followers in Judea (St Matthew 4:25), but that there were leaders of the people who opposed Christ who also hailed from Galillee (St Luke 5:17). And finally, note also a very interesting passage, St Luke 23:5:

οἱ δὲ ἐπίσχυον λέγοντες ὅτι ἀνασείει τὸν λαὸν διδάσκων καθ’ ὅλης Ï„á¿â€ Ï‚ Ἰουδαίας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Ï„á¿â€ Ï‚ Γαλιλαίας ἕως ὧδε.

But they kept on insisting, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place.

It seems, then, that in the mind of the accusers, one starts "teaching all over Judea" by preaching in Galilee, and working one's way down to Jerusalem! This is not strange, however, as the region that had once been called "Galilee of the Gentiles" had been regained by the Jews in recent memory after centuries of foreign rule, and it even became the center of the Jewish nationalist movement usually styled the "Zealots".

As for:

All I have been saying all along is that english speaking Orthodox may have missed something which Greek speaking (and from sin-vladimirov's post, Serbian speaking) Orthodox Christians who did not translate "Judaean" to read "Jew" have understood- that it refers to a particular people in a particular place.

Well, I've been reading my New Testament in Greek since I was 13 or so, and that idea still strikes me as odd.

--Julio
Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2005, 09:56:14 AM »

I'm not sure I am following you. What are you referring to as "them"?

Why, I suppose that's bona-fide, unadultered slang! Grin

(Meanwhile, mind the pedestrian! Wink)

Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2005, 10:11:21 AM »

And therein lieth thy chief problem in lexical semantics. You correctly realize that St John often uses  Ἰουδαῖοι in a specialized sense to refer to the Jerusalem contingent which opposed Jesus, and which was made up of chief priests, scribes and elders. But then you turn around and deduce that not only the chief priests, scribes, and elders are being referenced, but rather the all the residents of Judea,

Very early in this thread I used the analogy of saying :"Washington is responsible for invading Iraq" and excluded the residents:
Think of it this way: When I say "Washington is responsible for invading Iraq" I do not mean "the Americans are responsible for invading Iraq", In fact, I don't even mean that "every resident of Washington is responsible for invading Iraq", Similarly the fact that "the Judeans crucified Christ" does not mean "The Jews crucified Christ".
Perhaps you missed this?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2005, 10:18:27 AM »

Lord Jesus Christ was Judean.

No He wasn't.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matt 2:23)

And the multitude said, “This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt 21:11)

And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt 26:71)

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (Mark 1:9)

Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. (Mark 1:24)

And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. (Mark 10:47)

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) (Luke 2:4)
This verse is particularly interesting. Christ, by the definition which most people use to justify translating “Judaean” as “Jew”, should also be called a “Judaean” in the Gospel since He is descended from the house of Judah- yet He is called a Galilaean.-
“But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place." When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.ÂÂ  (Luke 23:5-7)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 10:20:10 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Esteban
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 99



« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2005, 10:28:00 AM »

No He wasn't, etc., etc., etc.

Lord, have mercy! Back to square one!  Undecided

Okay, whatever. This is ridiculous! If you wish to ignore sound lexical semantics, that's your problem. Also, there's nothing I can say I haven't already said in this thread before, only to have it ignored. But remember that saying something is so won't make it so.

--Julio
Logged

"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2005, 10:38:41 AM »

Lord, have mercy! Back to square one!ÂÂ  Undecided

Okay, whatever. This is ridiculous! If you wish to ignore sound lexical semantics, that's your problem. Also, there's nothing I can say I haven't already said in this thread before, only to have it ignored. But remember that saying something is so won't make it so.


Julio,
What's your problem?
Christ is called a Galilaean in the Gospel- facts are facts. Pilate recognised Him as a Galilaean. "When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time." (Luke 23:5-7).
The Gospel calls Him a Galilaean.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2005, 10:46:12 AM »

But OzG, Christ is Judean, He was born in Judea. So, he must be Judean.
Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2005, 11:03:54 AM »

But OzG, Christ is Judean, He was born in Judea. So, he must be Judean.

Then why does scripture say "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23)?ÂÂ  By the way, don't bother looking for this reference in the Old Testament, it is not from a book we recognise in our Canon, it comes from a lost book.
Why does Pilate call Him a Galilean? (Luke 23:5-7)
And most importantly, after Jesus is arrested and St. Peter denies Him, why do the people assume St. Peter must be associated with Christ since he is Galilaean? :
"After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."" (Mark 14:70)
and
"After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.""(Matthew 26:73)

Clearly, it's Judaeans vs. Galileans! Wink
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 11:06:04 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2005, 11:53:54 AM »

Brother, it is YOU who is separating Judeans from Jews not anyone else. I gave you 4-5 definitions from dictionary of the English language. But you still carry your way. No matter, saying wrong things over and over will not make them right. If that was the case Jehovah's Witness would long ago become those who hold the truth.

I never said that St. Peter was not Galilean. I said that Christ was Judean. He was born in Judea and His earthly father and his betrothed who is truly Mother of God and God bearer Miriam were both of Judean Tribe.

Now, what you say:
Matthew 2, 23.- It clearly says that HE CAME into Nazareth and settled there, which means he (St. Joseph) went into Nazareth because of fear of Archelaus (Mt 2, 22); and further this is AFTER the Egypt. Using your logic, is Jesus Egyptian? Mt. 2,23. Says that HE WILL BE CALLED NAZAREAN. But that does not mean that HE WAS one. The prophets just stated that He will be Called so, they did not say THAT HE WAS NAZAREAN. This is assumption. He was clearly not Nazarean, his family just setled there by the grace and in wisdom of God. Also those people that did call Christ Nazarean are not some I would be a friend with (except of course St. Nathaniel)

You said: Why does Pilate call him Galilean?
St. Luke 23, 5-7. Pilate did not call him Galielan, he asked if He was Galilean because people were saying that He was making trouble in all parts of the land (Judea) and in Galilee. So when Pilate heard the word Galilee he asked: IS THIS MAN A GALILEAN? (if your logic is right than Pilate is Judean because in Jn 18, 35 he is asking same type of question for himself). And it goes to say that Pilate found out that He is from Irod's parts he sent Him to Irod. Found out how? We know that Christ did not say it. The ONLY thing He said to Pilate (in Luke) was YOU SAID as an answer on Pilates question if He was KING OF JUDEANS!. So who told Pilate that He was Galilean? Lord said nothing to Irod eother (23, 9.). So where did this information that Christ was Galilean came from? I will come back to this later.


Now if we compare other reports:
St. Matthew is the same. 27, 11. Pilate ask Him if He was the King of Judeans, and He said YOU SAYS SO. And after that He said nothing.

St. Mark.15, 2. Same story.


St. John brings a bit bigger story:
John ch. 18 and 19:
Jesus Before Pilate
    28Then the Judeans (the english text - NIV - renders all words here JEWS, I changed them into Judeans as is in Serbian Version and so you would not cry outrage, funny that everyone but you thinks that Jews and Judeans are without distinction  Wink ) led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Judeans did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"

    30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

    31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

   "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Judeans objected. 32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

    33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Judeans?"

    34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

    35"Am I a Judean?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

    36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Judeans. But now my kingdom is from another place."

    37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
      Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

    38"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release the king of the Judeans'?"

    40They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.

 1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Judeans!" And they struck him in the face.

    4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Judeans, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"

    6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
      But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

    7The Judeans insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

    8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

    11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

    12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Judeans kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

    13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
      "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Judeans.

    15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
      "Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
      "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

    16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.


Now who told Pilate that He was Galilean? THE MOB, the very same Mob that in Jn 19, 21. tells that He said that He was King of the Judeans. You trust this mob to tell you stuff? Come on you are better than that. They do not know what they are doing, Lord said that. I would not trust them with a rotten tomato little own with Scriptures. Only people who called Christ Nazarean (to make the prophecy come true) were not nice guys anyway (again except St. Nathaniel, who is using the term slighly derogatory... so it seems, other than that you have mob and demons...).

 



Christ was not Galiean. If some of Holy Apostles were (as St. Peter) that does not make HIM a Galilean.


Christ was born in Judea. St. Joseph and Theotokos were both of Judean origin. David was a Judean, and both of them (St. Joseph and Theotokos come from tribe of David, so does Lord). They were not Galileans.. none of them.
Compare:
Mt. 2, 1-2.
Mt. 2, 5-6.
Lk. 2, 1-12.

What else?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 08:14:20 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2005, 11:54:37 PM »

Why did St. Paul consider Peter a Jew, when he was a Galilean like Christ?:

"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew [Ioudaios], live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews [Ioudaikos], why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews [Ioudaizein]?" (Gal. 2:14)

I'm not saying this because I'm anti-semitic and think the Jews are terrible and damned etc. etc. etc. I myself am ethnically Jewish, and my family is still religiously Jewish. I pray that God will have mercy on me and them.

I'm only saying this because it seems clear that "Jew" was a term that belonged to both Judeans in particular and to Jews on the whole. A bad analogy might be made to the term "Yankee"... to some extent it refers to all Americans, but in another context it means only Northerners.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 11:56:21 PM by Marjorie » Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 07, 2005, 11:58:55 PM »

Well Christ was obviously from Galilee, but he was from the tribe of Judah both on Joseph's (by adoption) and (according to the Fathers) Mary's side... and as "Judean" is synonymous with "of Judah," he is a sense Judean, even if he is a Galiean by province.

That being said, of course he felt more threatened by the Judeans. As he said, rather sarcastically, it would be impossible for a prophet to perish except in Jerusalem. This is not to say he felt "safe" in Galilee, though. Note the attempted killing of him in Capernaum (Luke 4.)

In IC XC,
Marjorie
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 12:03:55 AM by Marjorie » Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2005, 07:01:51 AM »

Guys & Gals,
If you look over my posts, I think you'll find that nowhere have I suggested that "Ίουδαϊος" never means "Jew" in the New Testament.
What I am objecting to is the translation of "Ίουδαϊος" as "Jew" when it is clear in the context that it is best translated as "Judaean".

John 7:1
και μετα ταυτα περιεπατει ο Iησους εν τη γαλιλαια ου γαρ ηθελεν εν τη ιουδαια περιπατειν οτι εζητουν αυτον οι ιουδαιοι αποκτειναι

is translated in the New KJV as:
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.

but the New KJV has a footnote on the word "Jews" saying "That is, the ruling authorities."ÂÂ  So even the New KJV recognises an instance when "ιουδαιοι" does not simply mean "Jews", but refers to a specific group of Jews, in this case qualified by the information that it refers to "the ruling authorities."
Don't we have the same practice in our own language? When we say "Cappadocians"- doesn't this carry connotations that this land produced pious and heroic Orthodox Saints? Aren't the Cappadocians renowned for this? So when we call someone a "Cappadocian" we mean more than simply "an Orthodox Christian from Cappadocia."
In Greece today, the Florinians (Orthodox Christians in Florina) are renowned for their piety and traditionalism, whereas, the Athenians (in Athens) are known as "innovators" and "Holy Week Christians" (who do not strictly keep the fasts except in Holy Week). Both the Florinians and the Athenians belong to the Church of Greece, but the Athenians come from the city where "the ruling authorities" come (i.e. the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece).
Both the terms "Athenian Christian"ÂÂ  and "Florinian Christian" carry connotations and can be used with an "agenda".

Then we have instances like:

Luke 23:5
οι δε επισχυον λεγοντες οτι ανασειει τον λαον διδασκων καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και αρξαμενος απο της γαλιλαιας εως ωδε

Which the New KJV translates as:
But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place."

However, the New KJV (and most english translations) have missed one word in this passage which they fail to translate. The word "και" which is the 14th word in the koine passage above.
"και" has several meanings depending on the context- it can mean "and" or "even" or "both...and"("και....και")
So if we translate the passage without skipping this apparently problematic "και" we get either:

But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee to this place."
or
But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, even beginning from Galilee to here (i.e. Judaea)."

I wager that the second translation is correct, and the intended meaning is that the Jews living in the province of Judea (not all of Palestine) complain that Christ is stirring up the people in the provinnce of Judea, and He dares to do this even though He comes from the backwater of Galilee- He has stirred up Galilee and Samaria, but we in Judea will not tolerate Him.
A bit like how the Athenians complained when Archbishop Augustino of Florina would visit Athens from the "backwater" of Florina and admonished them for their laxity!


« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 07:11:17 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2005, 08:56:26 AM »

Brother George, OK...

Lets start from the start and see how your ever changing oppinion developed here:

PAGE 1:
Here you are giving quotes from Romans and Corinthians using ENGLISH Translation. So far you have not developed this separation of Judeans and Jews.

PAGE 2:
Still no separation, even you are using JEWISH BOOGIES term so, we are OK to assume that there is no separation. On this page you have your FEAR OF GOD cry but we see no separation as yet. You finish this page with your remarks about St. Nikolaj, but we see no separation as yet.

PAGE 3:
On the page 3 you have a revelation and Lo and Behold you re-define languages of the world by YOUR  IBREI and IUDEI thing. One quote:""Jews" is "Ibrei" in koine, not "Ioudei". And when referring to the Jews in Romans 11, St. Paul never refers to them as "Ioudei" (Judeans) but "Israil" (Israel), because he is talking about the Jews, not the Judeans." (1). Then in the middle of this page you rock up with a handy map that proves nothing but is a handy little thing to make you look good. On this page you still have that separation.

PAGE 4:
Here you are twisting my words and using wrong analogies. On this page I make that misread about Mt 27, 25. And I apologise. But I still point out to you that your separation is wrong. On this page Veniamin asked a question and you answered him:"So, what ozgeorge is saying is that all Ioudei are Ibrei, but not all Ibrei are Ioudei.  Ioudei are thus a subset of Ibrei.  It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe to all Ibrei the actions of the Ioudei. Am I following this correctly?" To which you answer YES.(2) Further you go about pogroms. And toward the end I tell you how I hate people twisting my words to what you offer a "hand shake". You still continue separation. And you question KJV accuracy.

PAGE 5:
On this page you are also starting to question not just KJV but Orthodox translation of the Services and other English translation. Then you say:"here is a HUGE difference between saying "The Jews killed Christ" and "Jews in Judaea (i.e, Judaeans) killed Christ". The latter is linguistically more accurate, and the former has been used to justify progroms, pogroms, concentration camps, torture, dehumanization, gas chambers and the holocaust." (3). A gem, real gem. Then I give you 4-5 different references for word Jew. And this you just brush aside and go forward unrelenting to start talking about Greeks.

PAGE 6:
I love this page. Here you go to say that Christ is not Judean. And after I show you that he is, you just brush that aside to come to this page.



Well dear brother, you are a slippery little customer I will give you that.

1. Christ IS JUDEAN and not Galilean as you said.
2. JEW and JUDEAN are One the same thing (according to English and any other dictionary).
3. IBREI is not JEW, IBREI is HEBREW. IOUDEAN is JEW. (as per quotes (1) and (2))
4. Jews were not gassed because of the Bible. Your effort to change the language is not just wrong but also illogical. Because Adolf did not use KJV or any other English Version. If he did (which I doubt) he would use German Bible. And in German Bibles the word for Judean is JUDEN (which is the same word for Jew) German word for IBREI is HEBRÄER. (as per quote (3)).

So what else?







« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 10:01:09 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2005, 09:19:37 AM »

Here you are giving quotes from Romans and Corinthians using ENGLISH Translation. So far you have not developed this separation of Judeans and Jews.
Before you go any further, let me ask you: am I the first person on earth who has questioned whether "ιουδαιοι" simply means Jews?
If you look at the Orthodox Study Bible in the footnotes for John 7:1 (p230) you will see that the footnote explains that "Jews" is to be understood to mean "the Jewish leaders". So "Jews" doesn't mean "all Jews", but refers to a specific group of Jews. And this is coming from an Orthodox Source.
Am I saying anything different by insisting that "ιουδαιοι" in this instance refers to a specific group of Jews?

Here is a list of the people who agree thatÂÂ  "ιουδαιοι" in John 7:1 refers to a specific group of Jews (taken from the list of the Overview Committee of the Orthodox Study Bible):
Archbishop Iakovos
Metropolitan Theodosios
Metropolitan Phillip
Metropolitan Christopher
Bishop Anthony
Bishop Demetrios
Bishop Dmitri
Bishop Kallistos
Bishop Maximos
Bishop Nicholas
Bishop Vsevolod
Fr. Conianaris
Fr. Anthony Gabriel
Fr. Stanley Harakas
Fr. Thomas Hopko
Fr. Alexander Veronis
Fr. Thaddeus Wojcik
Who all belong to the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in America.

Could you please provide me with a similar list of Orthodox Bishops and priests who agree with your new position that the word "ιουδαιοι" in John 7:1 simply means "Jews" and refers to all Jews?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 09:35:43 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #93 on: July 08, 2005, 10:10:10 AM »

First of all, in my previous post I said that your effort to change language is not just wrong but also stupid.

I beg you to forgive me, as I said a harsh word that should not be said to anyone especially my Orthodox Brother. I beg you to forgive. It was improper of me to say that and I ask for forgiveness. Therefore, I have changed that word.


As far as this discussion is concerned, I wish to forfeit any further comments on this subject. I said what I said and it is a matter of my oppinion and record here. To that extent I have nothing further to add, and will endeavour to not add anything in the future. I find you argument wrong and of circular nature. That is something you have to deal with. I for one, have said things that I should not say, and not say it to my brother. Therefore to hell with any argument that will make me say thing like that again.

God bless you and please forgive.

Logged

Lord have mercy.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: July 08, 2005, 10:27:10 AM »

I said what I said and it is a matter of my oppinion and record here. To that extent I have nothing further to add, and will endeavour to not add anything in the future. I find you argument wrong and of circular nature.

My argument is of a circular nature?!!!

" "ιουδαιοι" always simply means "Jews" because I say so, even if Canonical Orthodox Bishops say otherwise....."

I have provided names of Orthodox Bishops who say that "ιουδαιοι" does not simply mean "Jews" in at least one instance in the Gospel, but refers to a specific group of Jews, and yet you have the gall and dare to call my argument "circular"!
I don't care if you call me "stupid", just don't say my argument is "circular" when clearly it is not.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 10:48:39 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 08, 2005, 10:59:08 AM »

Ozgeorge,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  I think your missing the greater point of what brother SV is saying.  While I tend to agree with your arguments here, his last post speaks volumes about him (at least to me), in as much as it shows great charachter.

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ We are all Orthodox here and yes, at times we have differing opinions on certain subjects.  I think he was just aiming to raise the discourse.  The greater point being, respect for each other.

  ÃƒÆ’‚  Oh, and I don't think your argument is circular, heck I don't even think it's round!!! Grin

SV,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ I appreciate your statement greatly.  Thank you brother.

To all,

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Sometimes I think the reason why we invite the RC's to chat here (or even the stray Muslim) is because it takes our focus of bashing each other. lol Wink  Is it possible that we not degenerate into pointless name calling (which I am admittedly guilty of)?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 10:59:50 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 08, 2005, 11:14:35 AM »

  ÃƒÆ’‚  I think your missing the greater point of what brother SV is saying.  While I tend to agree with your arguments here, his last post speaks volumes about him (at least to me), in as much as it shows great charachter.
I think his last post shows great character too, except for the "circular argument" bit! Wink

I mean, come on! ..."Circular argument'?
I'm still flabbergasted!

And can I add that cliche buzz words like "circular argument" and "beating a straw man" - which are resorted to so frequently on this forum by people - really get up my nose
.....and I know....it's my problem, and I just have to deal with it!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #97 on: July 08, 2005, 11:25:17 AM »

And can I add that cliche buzz words like "circular argument" and "beating a straw man" - which are resorted to so frequently on this forum by people - really get up my nose
.....and I know....it's my problem, and I just have to deal with it!

Don't force me to consult "Logical Self Defense" and hit you up with some red herrings, straw men, glittering generalities, circular reasoning and my favorite.... SERBIAN REASONING!!!!  We can find a reason for everything!  Grin
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #98 on: July 08, 2005, 06:33:45 PM »

and my favorite.... SERBIAN REASONING!!!!ÂÂ  We can find a reason for everything!ÂÂ  Grin
LOL!  A bit like Greeks....and what do you do with a nation full of "geniuses" and "philosophers"? Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #99 on: July 08, 2005, 09:10:11 PM »

LOL!ÂÂ  A bit like Greeks....and what do you do with a nation full of "geniuses" and "philosophers"? Cheesy

Why do you think the two nations get along so well!  It's a wonder the egos can tolerate each other!! Grin
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #100 on: July 11, 2005, 10:17:50 PM »

My argument is of a circular nature?!!!

" "ιουδαιοι" always simply means "Jews" because I say so, even if Canonical Orthodox Bishops say otherwise....."

On the contrary, no one has said that. Julio has said repeatedly that *sometimes* the word means Judeans, and *sometimes* Jews in general.

Quote from: Julio
Also, perhaps in quickly scanning my post, you missed my brief discussion of St John 7:1-2, which uses the term  ÃƒÆ’¡Â¼Â¸ÃŽÂ¿Ãâ€¦ÃŽÂ´ÃŽÂ±Ã¡Â¿â€“ος in two different ways, and which happen to be the more common uses of the term in the entire New Testament. Otherwise, you would not say that I'm arguing for a single meaning of the term in every instance—indeed, you might have even seen my remark that the term is used unevenly throughout.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
« Last Edit: July 11, 2005, 10:18:17 PM by Marjorie » Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2005, 04:08:05 AM »

On the contrary, no one has said that.

Marjorie,
I think I simply read too much into this:
2. JEW and JUDEAN are One the same thing (according to English and any other dictionary).
3. IBREI is not JEW, IBREI is HEBREW. IOUDEAN is JEW.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2005, 01:55:21 PM »

I find it very interesting that SCOBA support this idea that the Judeans killed Christ (with Roman permission of course). The late Metropolitan Ioann of Petrograd did not think this way nor did many Russian heirarchs and saints.  May be this is a Slavic thing, but on second thoughts, I don't think so.  It 'smells' to me of EP political soup.  Some thing is cooking in the background, me thinks, maybe in a Lodge somewhere..  Now the Jews are no longer guilty of deicide: His blood be upon us an upon our children - must only refer to Judeans.... I must start studying the so-called "Orthodox" Study Bible for myself.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2005, 06:25:41 PM »

The late Metropolitan Ioann of Petrograd did not think this way nor did many Russian heirarchs and saints.ÂÂ  May be this is a Slavic thing, but on second thoughts, I don't think so.ÂÂ  It 'smells' to me of EP political soup.ÂÂ  Some thing is cooking in the background, me thinks, maybe in a Lodge somewhere..ÂÂ  Now the Jews are no longer guilty of deicide: His blood be upon us an upon our children - must only refer to Judeans.... I must start studying the so-called "Orthodox" Study Bible for myself.

 I think it is a "Slavic" thing. And I think part of the reason for it is that the Russian Synodal Version translates "Judaean" as "Иудеи" and this is the same word for "Israelite" in Russian. There is no freemason plot on the part of the EP, just poor scholarship on the part of the Slavs.

Matthew 27:25 actually says:
"και αποκριθεις πας ο λαος ειπεν το αιμα αυτου εφ ÃƒÆ’ŽÂ·ÃŽÂ¼ÃŽÂ±Ãâ€š και επι τα τεκνα ημων."
Which translates into English as:
"And all the people answered, "His Blood be upon us and upon our children'."
"All the people"....SCOBA hasn't said anything that is not already in the Scriptures.

And if the Evangelist's intended meaning was that this refers only to the Jews, why doesn't he say "and all the Jews answered..." Yet he doesn't even say "and all the Judaeans answered...."

Was St. Matthew a freemason also?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2005, 07:24:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #104 on: October 08, 2008, 11:57:21 PM »

I want to know more on the background of the book, Through the Dungeon Window. It was posthumously published, and if I'm not mistaken under the communist government in Serbia. The book is actually very contrary to much of his own actions. If one reads the Wikipedia article about St. Nikolai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Velimirovic), most of it is devoted to some big rant on his supposed antisemitism. It portrays so many assumptions as facts, such as claiming he was released from Dachau in 1944 and not actually liberated by U.S. troops in 1945. It makes it seem as if the account of him helping Jews escape is a fabrication, and says he had "special treatment" in prison. Does anyone know the complete origin of Through the Dungeon Window before it was published, or any record of its existence prior to being published?
Logged

signature
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,724



WWW
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2010, 12:20:51 AM »

Wow, the author really goes strong against Bishop Serbsky:

Quote
CANONIZING THE 'PROPHET' OF ANTI-SEMITISM: THE APOTHEOSIS OF BISHOP NIKOLAJ VELIMIROVIC AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF RELIGIOUS ANTI-SEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN SOCIETY
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342451.html

It mentions strangely:
Quote
at Dachau, for reasons that defy rational explanation, Velimirovic wrote some of his most anti-Semitic material.

Velimirovic's notes from Dachau, which he is said to have written surreptitiously on scraps of (toilet) paper, were assembled and edited only in the 1980s by his nephew, the former bishop of Sabac and Valjevo, Jovan Velimirovic. The work was first published in Germany in 1985


One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 12:44:52 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,764



« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2010, 11:32:30 AM »


One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...

Of course the other obvious, but not politically correct, explanation could be that the Bishop’s views were based on Scriptural and Patristic writings, including the words of Christ Himself. 
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,724



WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2010, 12:09:23 PM »


One rational explanation is that he was tortured to write basically the Nazi ideas. On the other hand, the author describes Bishop Serbsky as anti-semitic other places...

Of course the other obvious, but not politically correct, explanation could be that the Bishop’s views were based on Scriptural and Patristic writings, including the words of Christ Himself.  

The obvious explanation is not that while undergoing Nazi tortures he was simply writing patristics on scraps of toilet paper, since he wrote:

Quote
All the modern catch-words of Europe have been composed by the Jews who crucified Christ, including democracy, and... pacifism

All these are the invention of Jews, or of the devil, the father of the Jews.

Everything else is less important or unimportant. But the most important thing is how Christian Europe managed to become the serving maid of the Jews...

That is not patristics. A saint under torture would most voluntarily and rationally write that "the most important thing" is to repent, love, hold fast to Jesus despite persecution, have faith, believe in God, obey the church, forgive, etc etc like so many other saints wrote while in prison.

It is not the most expected thing that a saint would voluntarily write on scraps of paper that "the most important thing" is that Jews or Satan invented "democracy" to make Europe serve the Jews, and that "everything else" like Jesus, defending Serbia, forgiveness, the Church, is unimportant.

In the Bible, it was only because the ancient Israelites couldn't rule themselves and wanted a king that God gave them one. So originally the ancient Israelites didn't have a king, but probably had assemblies of tribal elders like we see with other tent-dwelling peoples. Modern democracy originates from ancient Greece, the pre-Csarist Roman Senate, the 7th century Republic of Venice, the Veche of Novgorod, the medieval Polish parliament, and Russian peasant serf communes and peasants' councils.

It's anti-patristics to say that the "most important thing" is that European assembly-rule is from Jews or Satan, and that everything else like defending Serbia from Nazism, or holding fast to Jesus while tortured for one's Orthodox faith is less or unimportant.

It defies rational explanation that he wrote his strongest writings against Jews while tortured by Nazis for his faith. One defense made is that he was tortured into writing it, which sounds like a good explanation. The only problem is that he allegedly had some weaker antisemitism when he wasn't in prison.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 12:17:59 PM by rakovsky » Logged
W.A.Mozart
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Eschaton
Posts: 501


Lazare, veni foras!


« Reply #108 on: January 03, 2012, 09:22:59 AM »

I need help... is there an English translation of the book Indijska pisma-Indian letters
Logged

completely new, especially not yet used
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   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 0.501 seconds with 136 queries.