OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:45:44 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti-Semite Fathers of the Church?  (Read 8793 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2005, 12:25:08 PM »

It is true that if any of the Fathers actually taught we should hate the Jews that would not be right. The fact that they often taught us to love all men without exception leads me to conclude that the harsh words they had for the Jews in other texts should be understood in a way that harmonizes with the totality of their writings. Any apparent contradictions should be given the benefit of the doubt vs. our own faulty understanding.

  As for the "flat earth" theory. It's an idea that seems to have originated with the same man who invented the Headless Horseman. It was never the widespread belief in ancient or medieval times by any educated person- Christian or not. An excellent debunking book is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/027595904X/104-9852932-2859940?n=283155 Also, a google search of fathers+flat earth will turn up a lot of info on this as well..........

In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,944


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2005, 11:35:33 PM »

It is true that if any of the Fathers actually taught we should hate the Jews that would not be right. The fact that they often taught us to love all men without exception leads me to conclude that the harsh words they had for the Jews in other texts should be understood in a way that harmonizes with the totality of their writings. Any apparent contradictions should be given the benefit of the doubt vs. our own faulty understanding.   

Amen.

As for the "flat earth" theory. It's an idea that seems to have originated with the same man who invented the Headless Horseman. It was never the widespread belief in ancient or medieval times by any educated person- Christian or not. An excellent debunking book is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/027595904X/104-9852932-2859940?n=283155 Also, a google search of fathers+flat earth will turn up a lot of info on this as well..........     

I can't remember where else I've heard the debunking of the supposed "flat earth" beliefs of the ancients...  But I've heard it before somewhere else...
Logged

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

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2005, 12:18:05 AM »

Catholic e-pologists seem to enjoy debunking that myth...

Though Matthew's point about the Fathers and science is an interesting one. The same false dichotomy which saves Matthew's unnecessary attempt to cling to modern science remains a false dichotomy when religious people use it to rationalize the fallibility of the Church and her speakers. Matthew's "science and faith are two seperate things" belief is not tenable within an Orthodox Christian framework, but I am increasingly coming to believe that an Orthodox Christian also cannot hold to the the belief that "the Fathers [or Scripture writers] might have erred in some area of science, but they spoke correctly when taken unison on matters of faith and morals". Where does such a distinction come from?ÂÂ  How does one distinguish between anthropology as a science and the aspects of anthropology which directly effect faith and morals? Where did the Fathers or Scripture writers speak of such distinctions anyway? Is it not really just a modern attempt to protect ourselves against our intellectual enemies?ÂÂ  But even supposing that the distinction were valid, would we say that the estrangement from millions of people (e.g., OO's) for sixteen hundred years isn't a matter of faith and morals? Or can the Fathers perhaps have been wrong? Could the Church have been wrong for hundreds of years?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 12:18:41 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2005, 01:25:20 AM »

We have a copy of Russell's book.  It's an excellent volume, that gives names and dates and real historical information. 

Why would it be a problem to seperate an error on a scientific matter from writings on morality.  I recall that in the last year, Matthew777 was having thread(s) about evolution/Natural Science/biology.  There was link to some father writing about fishes and sea creatures that was just biologically wrong.  An easy division from morality, maybe

Ebor

Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2005, 01:53:45 AM »

I've read St. Basil's Hexaemeron and in this sermon, he clearly insists that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2005, 02:04:35 AM »

Quote
Why would it be a problem to seperate an error on a scientific matter from writings on morality.

Certainly there can be writings which are seperate, I did not mean to say that every discussion of everything from bacteria to asteroids had to have a moral aspect, and vice versa. If I said that then I apologize, I did not mean to. I meant to speak of those issues (e.g., contraception, evolution, demonic possession, etc.) in which science and faith did seem to intersect. I am thinking especially of those areas where an incorrect scientific understanding seems to imply an incorrect moral belief, or at least cases in which inaccuracy in a non-moral aspect leads to suspician as to the accuracy of the moral aspect. Also, what I disagree with is the application of the faith vs. other stuff dichotomy to Scripture and other similar texts. I mean, in all the attempts by early Christians to reconcile "contradictions" in Scripture, did anyone ever say "Well we must remember that while the mustard seed does not truly grow up to be the biggest tree, Jesus was still right on when it came to the moral point that was being made"? (I can feel ozgeorge coming in here, saying why the mustard seed thing really isn't about a tree, but a bush... ÂÂ  but anyway that's the first example that came to mind and is the type of thing that I am thinking of).
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 02:05:41 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
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 #51 on: December 28, 2005, 02:26:31 AM »

I've read St. Basil's Hexaemeron and in this sermon, he clearly insists that the earth is flat
Then I suggest you re-read St. Basil the Great’s Hexaemeron, with particular attention to Homily IX where the Great Saint says in regards to the shape of the Earth:

"Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?"

In other words, St. Basil the Great says: “I don’t know, Moses didn’t say, and I don’t care ‘cause knowing it won't save my soul”. What he definitely doesn’t say is “The earth is such and such a shape."

and that the sun revolves around the earth.
Relatively speaking, the Sun does revolve around the Earth.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 02:27:24 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 28, 2005, 02:40:31 AM »

Then I suggest you re-read St. Basil the Great’s Hexaemeron, with particular attention to Homily IX where the Great Saint says in regards to the shape of the Earth:

Since when is the spherical shape of the earth a matter of 'foolish wisdom'?

Relatively speaking, the Sun does revolve around the Earth.

Objectively speaking, St. Basil was wrong. We don't need to defend the fathers when they erred but only when they were correct.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 02:42:08 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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 #53 on: December 28, 2005, 03:41:28 AM »

Since when is the spherical shape of the earth a matter of 'foolish wisdom'?
Since hundreds of thousands of souls managed to become Saints without knowing it.

Objectively speaking, St. Basil was wrong.
Relatively speaking, St. Basil is right. And even today we talk about the Sun's movement across the sky, so by your standards, we are just as wrong as St. Basil.

We don't need to defend the fathers when they erred but only when they were correct.
Just as well St. Basil didn't err then! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 28, 2005, 03:51:12 AM »

And even today we talk about the Sun's movement across the sky, so by your standards, we are just as wrong as St. Basil.

By our standards, we know that we are only utilizing figurative language.

This is a compilation of quotes from ancient thinkers on the flatness of the earth:
THE FLAT EARTH
A Detailed Study of Personal Bias and Historical Thinking.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html

While the source may be questionable, one could find the same quotes on other sites.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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 #55 on: December 28, 2005, 03:57:24 AM »

By our standards, we know that we are only utilizing figurative language.
And how do you know St. Basil wasn't simply describing what everyone saw- the relative movement of the Sun around the Earth?

Now, Matthew, are you going to retract your claim that St Basil said the Earth was flat? Or do I have to quote him again?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2005, 04:04:11 AM »

Now, Matthew, are you going to retract your claim that St Basil said the Earth was flat? Or do I have to quote him again?

The flatness of the earth is at least implied. Furthermore, when he speaks of the sun's revolution around the earth, it is clear that he is not speaking in reference of time given that such a concept as relativity was not discovered yet. St. Basil is not alone among the church fathers on erring in cosmology. The point is that they were not correct in everything.

 "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall" 
Severian, Bishop of Gabala
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 04:11:18 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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: December 28, 2005, 04:09:58 AM »

The flatness of the earth is at least implied.
By what? By St. Basil's reference to the circumference of the Earth?

it is clear that he is not speaking in reference of time given that such a concept was on discovered yet
Errr... perhaps you should read a history book or two.... Erastothenes of Alexandria not only proved that the Earth was round in 300BC, he also calculated it's circumference. http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/courses/satex/sp96/noon-project/Eras.html What do they teach you guys in school these days? Wink
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 04:10:43 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2005, 04:17:16 AM »

What do they teach you guys in school these days? Wink

You've missed the point. Whether or not it was proved the earth was round does not show what the fathers actually believed.

"There is evidence that the round Earth was accepted by many Christians. For example, Emperor Theodosius II of the Byzantine Empire placed the globus cruciger (which depicts the Earth as round) on his coins.

However, the antipodes (thought to be separated from the Mediterranean world by the uncrossable torrid clime) were difficult to reconcile with the Christian view of a unified human race descended from one couple and redeemed by a single Christ. Consequently, some of the Church Fathers questioned their existence and even the roundness of the Earth. Saint Augustine (354-430) wrote:
"Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man." (De Civitate Dei, 16.9)

Augustine denied the antipodes, not the round Earth. However, the phrase "even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round" suggests that he was skeptical of the round Earth, and perhaps even that many others were as well.

A few authors directly opposed the round Earth. Lactantius (245—325) called it "folly" because people on a sphere would fall down. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (315—386) saw Earth as a firmament floating on water. Saint John Chrysostom (344—408) saw a spherical Earth as contradictory to scripture. Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408) and Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) argued for a flat Earth. Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) called Earth "a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas" in his Christian Topography, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe. Saint Basil (329—379) argued that knowledge about Earth's shape was irrelevant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_Early_Church
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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 #59 on: December 28, 2005, 04:20:22 AM »

What shape has a circumference Matthew?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2005, 04:30:20 AM »

What shape has a circumference Matthew?

A circle or a sphere. While perhaps a minority of fathers explicitly taught a flat earth, geocentrism was still the prevailing view.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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: December 28, 2005, 04:59:39 AM »

A circle or a sphere. While perhaps a minority of fathers explicitly taught a flat earth, geocentrism was still the prevailing view.

OK, so then let's review your claims on this thread and examine thier objective validity. You said:
I've read St. Basil's Hexaemeron and in this sermon, he clearly insists that the earth is flat
Well, I think we've shown that in his Hexaemeron, St. Basil clearly does not insist that the Earth is flat. In fact, he makes reference to it being round. So "clearly" you were wrong.

The flatness of the earth is at least implied.
Wrong again, as we have just shown, St. Basil implied the Earth was round, not flat.

Furthermore, when he speaks of the sun's revolution around the earth, it is clear that he is not speaking in reference of time given that such a concept as relativity was not discovered yet.
Wrong again, it is not relativity "in reference of time", but in reference of space. Your claim here would be like saying that St. Basil had no idea that that someone standing South of him could possibly have someone standing North of him who is South of St. Basil. This is basic relativity in space which even the Ancients (and probably Neanderthals) understood.

To illustrate relativity of position in space:

* <- St. Basil 

*<- Man #1

*<- Man #2

If North is up the page, then "Man #1" is relatively North of "Man #2" but both Man #1 and Man #2 are relatively South of St. Basil. So Man #2 is either North or South depending on your reference point...hardly revelational, even to the ancients. In the same way, depending on your reference point, the Sun rotates around the Earth relative to the Earth. What's more, the ancients had theorised that the Earth rotates and the Sun was the centre of the planets (Heracleides of Pontus  c388BC). None of these ideas were foreign or undiscovered, and they only became lost in the West during the Dark Ages. These theories abounded at the time of the Fathers.

So you see Matthew, in this one thread you yourself have been wrong about objective facts more times than you accused St. Basil of being wrong. Wink
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 05:27:27 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2005, 06:11:45 AM »

Wrong again, as we have just shown, St. Basil implied the Earth was round, not flat.

St. Basil does not affirm either way, probably out of fear that he would upset those who did believe in a flat earth.

So you see Matthew, in this one thread you yourself have been wrong about objective facts more times than you accused St. Basil of being wrong. Wink

Again, one must not forget that geocentrism was, at one time, the prevailing understanding within the Church. This arose from a hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 06:32:08 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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 #63 on: December 28, 2005, 07:54:55 AM »

Again, one must not forget that geocentrism was, at one time, the prevailing understanding within the Church. This arose from a hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture.
Geocentrism was the prevailing understanding in the Roman Catholic Church, not "The Church". Possibly because they and the protestants made the same mistake you just made. The Scripture you quote is an English translation of the Masoretic text, Matthew, and this is not the Text which the Fathers used. They used the Greek Septuagint. So I think you are being ethnocentric, anachronistic and projecting your own misunderstanding of the scriptures on to the Fathers.

For example:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
In the LXX reads:
"Let all the earth fear before Him, let the earth be established and not be moved."
Clearly not a reference to the act of creation, since it calls on the earth to become established (as though it is not established now).

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
In the LXX reads:
"The Lord reigns, He has clothed Himself with honour; The Lord has girded Himself with strength, for He has established the ecumene, it shall not be shaken."
"Established" means "strengthened" or "made firm". "Ecumene" can mean "the inhabited earth" or "the universe" and "shaken" means "occilated" or "disturbed". Now the ancient's experienced earthquakes, so clearly something other than "the earth not moving" is meant here, since the word for "shaken" "σαλευθήσεται" is exactly the word used to mean the movement of the earth during an earthquake.

I could go through your other quotes, but it would just be repetition of the same, and I'm off to bed.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2005, 08:17:22 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 29, 2005, 01:56:09 AM »

Geocentrism was the prevailing understanding in the Roman Catholic Church, not "The Church".

If you are correct, please give one pre-Copernican example of a father of the church who insisted that the earth revolves around the sun. My only intention in stressing this point is that the fathers were not infallible, not that they were altogether unreliable.
We can forgive the fathers for erring on scientific matters because of their truthfulness in almost everything else. Again, some fathers of the church may have hated the Jews. But this only shows that they were human. In order to resolve the dilemma of how the Jews could have rejected their own Messiah, some insisted that the Jews themselves must be an evil and corrupt race rather than having Jesus be an inadequate Messiah. One need only read the Epistle of Barnabas to see that this line of thinking exists in the early Church among some members. I'd rather take the view of Pascal that while Jesus is the true Messiah, a true Jew may none the less have God without Christ.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 01:58:24 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2005, 02:27:54 AM »

So when Christ said "no man comes to the Father but through me," what he really meant was "If you're cool with me, I can get you in,  otherwise you can get in another way"?
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 29, 2005, 02:52:56 AM »

As Paul wrote, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. If that is true, how can we say that God's chosen no longer have God?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #67 on: December 29, 2005, 03:38:53 AM »

Have you ever read where Jews are those who follow God's will, not those descended from Abraham (ie. Jewishness in God's eyes is a matter of spirituality, not ethnicity)? The old covenant has been superceeded; being "a faithful Jew" today means something different than it did in 1000BC.
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 29, 2005, 04:42:59 AM »

I don't believe that Romans 11 would allow for such semantic games:

Rom 11:26   
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:    
Rom 11:27   
For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.    
Rom 11:28   
As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.    
Rom 11:29   
For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 04:44:30 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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: December 29, 2005, 07:36:23 AM »

Rom 11:26   
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:
"ALL Israel" means that the Old Israel will be saved along with the New Israel by the incorporationof the former into the latter.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2005, 07:52:51 AM »

"ALL Israel" means that the Old Israel will be saved along with the New Israel by the incorporationof the former into the latter.

That is your own interpretation. The chapter is obviously speaking of the Hebrew people.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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: December 29, 2005, 08:16:11 AM »

That is your own interpretation.
No it isn't.
It's the interpretation of the Fathers. I am an Orthodox Christian, and therefore I must understand the Scriptures in light of the Fathers' interpretations within the Church.

The chapter is obviously speaking of the Hebrew people. 
St. Paul didn't divide his Epistle (and thoughts) into chapters, we did. In the same Epistle, St. Paul says not all who are of Israel are israel:
[bible]Romans 9:6-12[/bible]
and again
[bible]Romans 9:25-26[/bible]
He describes how we (the gentiles) become Children of Abraham according to promise and according to Faith, and how this saves us since we receive the promises made to the children of Abraham.
And he developes this thought in his Epistle saying how eventually "All Israel" (Old and New) shall be saved. And that the disbelief of Old Israel shall come to an end, and they will believe in Christ when the all the Gentiles who are to come into the Church have come into it:
[bible]Romans 11:25[/bible]
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2005, 11:43:51 PM »

In Romans 11, if Paul is referring to Gentile Christians as 'Israel' how could 'Israel' be our enemy?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 11:47:57 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
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: December 30, 2005, 06:41:44 AM »

In Romans 11, if Paul is referring to Gentile Christians as 'Israel' how could 'Israel' be our enemy?

Forgive me. I have obviously not been clear in my communication, otherwise you could not have made this remark.

Firstly, Romans 11 is not about the New Israel, but the Old Israel. Only one verse of this chapter (verse 26) refers to both Old and New Israel together as "All Israel". Why would St. Paul use the term "All Israel shall be saved" to mean "all the the people of Jewish descent shall be saved" when he himself in the same chapter writes that only a remnant of Old Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:5)? Wouldn't he be contradicting himself (and God) by saying that only a remnant of Israel will be saved in verse 5 and then saying that "All Israel" will be saved in verse 26? If only a remnant of something is saved, then it is not all saved.
So clearly, by the term "All Israel", St. Paul must be referring to something other than :"all the people of Jewish descent", otherwise, as pointed out, he would be contradicting himself, since he says earlier in the same Epistle that only "a remnant" of Israel (i.e. "the people of Jewish descent" or "Old Israel") shall be saved.

By "All Israel" in Verse 26 of the 11th Chapter of Romans, St. Paul means the "New Israel" composed of the Jews and Gentiles who have entered the Church. He leads up to this by developing his thoughts (like the skilled orator he is).

St. Paul developes his thoughts in Romans in the following way:

1) God has made promises to Israel, and they were adopted as sons of God:[bible]Romans 9:4[/bible]

2) The apparent failure of Israel to believe in Christ is not evidence that God's promises have failed, because there is a New Israel composed not solely of descendants of Abraham accoding to the flesh (i.e., the Jews) but this New Israel is comprised of those who believe in Christ and become children of Abraham by Faith (whether Jew or Gentile). [bible]Romans 9:6-8[/bible]

3) The disbelief of the Jews has meant that the Gentiles can now be saved, because God's plan for Israel was that it should receive Christ, yet Old Israel rejected Him.[bible]Romans 9:30-33[/bible] [bible]Romans 10:16-21[/bible][bible]Romans 11:11-12[/bible]

4) But we must, on no account, boast or gloat over Old Israel because of this, because we are heirs of God's promises by adoption, whereas the Jews were the "natural" heirs and because just as the "natural heirs" were not spared, the "adopted heirs" may not be spared either. Not all who are baptised will be saved- we too may not be saved:[bible]Romans11:17-21[/bible]


5) Furthermore, even though for the time being New israel is being saved because of Old Israel's disobedience, a time is coming when a remnant of the Old Israel will be joined to the New Israel, and so "ALL Israel" (that is, the TRUE Israel) will be saved. And this is happening even now since Old Israel's blindness is only "in part" (i.e. "partial" in that some Jews, like St. Paul, were entering the Church).[bible]Romans 11:25-27[/bible]

6)And the saving of this remnant of Old Israel will occur because, even though Old Israel is at emnity with the Gospel because of disobedience and disbelief, she is still loved by God for the sake of the Patriarchs.And this disobedience of Old Israel has allowed salvation to come to the Gentiles (therefore, the "emnity" is "for our sake"). Even so, God has made promises to Israel, and He will not revoke them. [bible]Romans 11:28-29[/bible]

7) The promises made to Israel are being fulfilled in the New Israel, however, God will also save "a remnant" of Old Israel in the same way He saved us, the Gentiles. That is, we who were once disobedient as Gentile pagans received the mercy promised to Israel because Old Israel disobeyed. Now that the Old Israel is disobedient, a remmnant will be saved through God's mercy which is ministered through the Church ("through your mercy") [bible]Romans 11:30-32[/bible]



« Last Edit: December 30, 2005, 09:17:51 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Posts: 1


« Reply #74 on: December 30, 2005, 06:25:31 PM »

I've always wondered how the followers of a Jewish prophet could have hatred toward the Jewish people. I am not surprised in finding anti-semitism in early Christianity and neither does it cause me to condemn those who held to it. However, this does show that the fathers of the church may not have been right on everything.


Dear Matthew777,

If some early church fathers denounced certain things that Jewish people as a whole were supposedly doing at that time, that does not mean that they have "hatred" towards the Jewish people. Did their quotes in your post state that they "hated" Jews? And does condemming certain undesirable actions and/or traits (assuming they were true) automatically translate to one being anti-semitic? I don't think you can automaically assume they "hated" the Jews, as you suggest....
Logged
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2005, 08:16:42 PM »

We are taught only One is Perfect. The Saints are not perfect, nor are we. Is it easier to try to find 'fault' with the Fathers rather than to reflect on one's own sinfulness?
Logged
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2005, 08:35:52 PM »

StephenG:
   Well said !!!!!
Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,944


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2005, 08:54:36 PM »

I would agree with StephenG, even further: seeking out things like Anti-Semitism in the Fathers, is it a way for us to try to find fault and discredit them?  We know they are but human, and their writings reflect that.  But trying to find something sinister in them is a stretch...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2005, 01:19:53 AM »

It's a rather hateful statement that the 'serpent Judas' represents the Jewish people as a whole.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 01:20:35 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #79 on: December 31, 2005, 01:26:50 AM »

It's a rather hateful statement that the 'serpent Judas' represents the Jewish people as a whole.

meh..
think what you want...
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2005, 03:06:56 AM »

It's a rather hateful statement that the 'serpent Judas' represents the Jewish people as a whole.

Judas wouldn't mean anything if there weren't a large crowd of Jewish leaders ready to take Christ off his hands.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2005, 03:33:18 AM »

Judas wouldn't mean anything if there weren't a large crowd of Jewish leaders ready to take Christ off his hands.

Only a small minority of the Jews, encouraged by the temple leadership, supported the crucifixion of Christ.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #82 on: January 01, 2006, 08:20:08 PM »

What is your evidence please for their being only a small minority, or even simply a minority?

Their 'voice' at the time appeared to be enough to sway a Roman prefect who appeared to be reluctant to be pushed as far as he was. Was he so weak and insecure that a 'small minority' could be so persuasive?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2006, 08:20:42 PM by StephenG » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 01, 2006, 08:21:49 PM »

Their 'voice' at the time appeared to be enough to sway a Roman prefect who appeared to be reluctant to be pushed as far as he was. Was he so weak and insecure that a 'small minority' could be so persuasive?

Do you honestly think that all the Jews living at the time were present at Jesus' crucifixion? Even if they were, Pilate's decision was ultimately based on the ones who shouted the loudest.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #84 on: January 01, 2006, 08:28:43 PM »

It would appear clear from your various posts that you appear determined to interpret both the Fathers and the events surrounding certain events in a negative and hostile way. For my sinful and unworthy self I may struggle to understand, to grasp or to embrace the teachings and the ascetic struggle of the Fathers. I may at times not comprehend the differences in theological debates between the Orthodox and the heretics, but judgement of them who the Church in Her wisdom has recognised as Saints and Fathers of the Church I should be very slow to do, preferring to question first my own inadequacy and shortcomings.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 01, 2006, 08:40:44 PM »

The Church has always recognized that saints are sinners too. No one is infallible but God alone.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2006, 07:49:45 PM »

True, was this not my point several posts back?

Now to your arguments.

First, the feast of Passover at that time was attended by many from all over Judea and Gallilee and beyond. A great many. In that crowd before Pilate were not only numbers but the leadership of the people. No small crowd and not simply a loud one, but an influential one.

Second, you choose as your title '....Anti-Semite Fathers of the Church?' Is your wisdom and insight greater than the 'mind' of the Church over centuries on the Fathers, and can you be sure you understand their writings in the Trinitarian way so lucidly explained in an earlier post?

Third, the Jews were the chosen people and very, very many did accept their promised Messiah but at that time and since have rejected Him. Just as many of their forbears rejected even the Law and the Prophets. And since His coming many so-called Christians too have rejected or betrayed Him. It is one thing for someone who has never known of the True God to reject Him but for His chosen people, and subsequently a Christian to reject Him quite something else. Is this the sense of word "Jew' used by the Fathers?

The term antisemitism is one of comparative origin and I suspect you are understanding these things in a worldly way (and a modern one at that). Have you sort the advice of an Elder or such before making such criticisms of Fathers of the Church and their teaching? Or are you in your perfection and wisdom greater than they? I ask this not to offend or to ridicule but to understand how you can make such bold statements on those whose shoes we are not fit wear.
Logged
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2006, 03:58:52 PM »

Perhaps Matthew questions the Fathers alone but also Scripture?

"You are of your father the devil, and the desire of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (Jn. 8:44)

"And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children." (Mt 27:25)

"For you brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end."" (I Thess. 2:14-16)



Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #88 on: August 02, 2006, 10:35:07 PM »

Saint John Chrysostom (ca 344 - 407 CE) - wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies Adversus Judaeos, Against The Jews (or Against the Judaizers) [4]. These quotes are translations from the original Greek posted by Paul Halsall: other researchers give slightly different translations.
"Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure." (Homily I, VII, 1)

"But before I draw up my battle line against the Jews, I will be glad to talk to those who are members of our own body, those who seem to belong to our ranks although they observe the Jewish rites and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew." (HOMILY IV, II, 4)

What rites of the Jewish-Christians was he referring to during that time?
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #89 on: October 14, 2006, 10:42:05 AM »

The Holy Fathers were no more "Anti-Semitic" than St. Paul and St. John (both Jewish themselves). Take a concordance and do a word study on how the New Testament writers used the term and you will find a number of things that could be called anti-semitic if the Scriptures were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.16 seconds with 73 queries.