OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 05:55:02 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 16467 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
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 0.263 seconds with 72 queries.