E
exnihilo
Guest
I use Joe Sobran’s definition. It is absolutely true for our time.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So our takeaway from your post is that anti-Semitism was started by Jesus, a Jewish tekton, Peter and John, Jewish fishermen, Saul, a Jewish Pharisee, and Stephen, also a Jew.
This led to the holocaust committed by mostly Nazi Aryan pagans who eschewed and reviled Christianity, but it was, nonetheless, still to blame for the holocaust, even though Catholic priests and nuns were also killed in substantial numbers in concentration camps.
G
guanophore
Guest
Passage of what? The scriptural and early fathers links I gave I think have been used to fuel the fire of antisemitism.
G
guanophore
Guest
I guess if that is your takeaway, then you do not understand the difference between using certain passages and expression to fuel prejudice and bigotry, and actually blaming these individuals for things they did not do. I don’t know what to tell you.
It is no different than people using Scripture to justify slavery.
Are you trying to suggest that the Nazis were not really anti-semetic?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No, actually, but I am neither willing to consider the early Church was, either. In fact, the Church has nowhere in its teachings or doctrines shown even a whiff of anti-Semitism. There is no denying that some Christians, even Catholics have been. That attitude has not, however, been the result of, nor “fueled by,” any doctrine, teaching or practice of the Church, but possibly the result of some distortion of those.HarryStotle:
I guess if that is your takeaway, then you do not understand the difference between using certain passages and expression to fuel prejudice and bigotry, and actually blaming these individuals for things they did not do. I don’t know what to tell you.
It is no different than people using Scripture to justify slavery.
Are you trying to suggest that the Nazis were not really anti-semetic?
G
guanophore
Guest
I am surprised to hear you say you don’t think the Nazis were anti-semetic. But, that is between you and your maker. I am glad to hear that you don’t believe the Church ever taught anti-semetism.
I guess that means you do not consider Chrysostom to be a “whiff” in the Church?
I am glad we are in agreement on this point.
C
curious_cath
Guest
I believe, criticism of Jews is unjust. You may criticize attitudes, behaviors or actions but not the person. St. John Chrysostom found fault with the attitudes, behaviors and actions of his Jewish contemporaries. But he never extended his criticism to a denunciation of a whole people. That is why he is not anti-Semitic, although anti-Semites love to quote him.
C
curious_cath
Guest
Who is Joe Sobran? The journalist who died a long while ago?
C
curious_cath
Guest
It was a recognition of facing two separate religions in the Early Church that time. It was Judaism and Christianity as separate entities, not just a somewhat revolutionized and reformed “Christian” Judaism. The recognition of the TWO rather than sticking to the ONE caused the temporary animosity.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Here’s the problem with you having preconceived notions of what you want to read…
Now read very carefully, and try to think at the same time…
Now read very carefully, and try to think at the same time…
Clearer perhaps?
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
This was the point I was trying to make. There are quotes that can be taken, from the Scripture and the writings that are taken to bolster that “denunciation of a whole people”. The same was done to support slavery. This type of cherry picking, also used to support doctrines, ignores other statements/verses that indicate the opposite. For example, one never sees “Salvation is of the Jews” {John 4:22 } in this context, since it does not support the desired result.
E
exnihilo
Guest
So you agree the writings, including St. John Chrysostom are not anti-Semitic. But people may use them, out of context, for anti-Semitic purposes.
G
goout
Guest
Clearly the Church did not teach anti Semitism in any way.
Also, clearly many Christians wrongly blame the Jewish people for a variety of human ills, including the crucifixion. (The Church teaches that we all participate in the crucifixion).
In the Gospels, passages seem to blame the Jewish people en-masse for resisting the Christian message. …"…for fear of the Jews…"
By analogy, “the Americans” won many medals at the Olympics. May I see your medal please?
“The Americans” dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. Does that implicate all Americans personally?
This is a textbook demonstration of the problems that fundamentalist scripture interpretations cause. You can’t take scripture out of context and make it mean something it was not intended to mean.
This is the ultimate context:
God, in the fullness of time (1st century Israel), sent his only Son into the world (as a Jewish man), born of a (Jewish) woman, to his chosen people (the Jews). Son of David, Son of God.
Jesus was a first century Jew, and he is, in himself, the embodiment of God’s covenant with the Jewish people.
His disciples were Jews.
Their disciples were Jews. And all of us Gentiles are grafted on to that tree.
I’m not sure how those realities are forgotten, but they are constantly forgotten.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Like a lot of other heresies and heretical tendencies, anti-Semitism comes mostly from Greco-Roman popular culture. Yup, I blame the pagans. 
Seriously, though. If you look at the European medieval “blood libels”, they correspond almost exactly with anti-Christian ideas promulgated by ignorant Romans. The idea that Jews gave allegiance to God rather than to the Emperor, that they were prone to rebellions, etc. bled onto Christians in Roman pop culture, and the idea that Christians were eating a human sacrifice bled onto the Jews. All kinds of made-up stuff ensued. And since Christians knew it wasn’t true about them, some of them apparently believed it was true of the Jews. Meanwhile, since Jews knew it wasn’t true of them, they often believed it was true about Christians.
As others have noted in this thread, both Christians and Jews were evangelically spreading their religion during Roman times. Jews converted Christians to Judaism, and Christians converted Jews, and both went after Gentiles. Some people bobbed back and forth, or joined closely related heretical or occult faiths.
So as you would expect, there was some badmouthing done on both sides, while other folks managed to be civil to both sides.
So no, anti-Semitism was never doctrinal. But it was an idea that carried its poison through time, sometimes fought down and sometimes encouraged, even by those who should have known better. It was a lot easier for people to externalize all of Christ’s suffering as having been caused by “the Jews” or “Herod” or “Pontius Pilate,” rather than by themselves personally, and all humanity as a group, being sinners. But blaming everybody else but Christians was heretical and creepy.
Re: language in the Gospels about “the Jews,” of course they were written by Jews. But more to the point, it was supposed to be pointing out that the people of the principality of Judaea, who should have known better because they were the people of the old kingdom of Judah, were the ones who were screwing up at those points. (As opposed to the people from other Jewish groups and areas.) So even though John, for example, was a Judaean, he was blaming his own folks as opposed to the Galileans or Samaritans. This tied into some of the Scriptural prophecies and warnings, so it was seen as important to point out. But later people read it wrong.
(Like the song says, “Blame Canada!”)
Seriously, though. If you look at the European medieval “blood libels”, they correspond almost exactly with anti-Christian ideas promulgated by ignorant Romans. The idea that Jews gave allegiance to God rather than to the Emperor, that they were prone to rebellions, etc. bled onto Christians in Roman pop culture, and the idea that Christians were eating a human sacrifice bled onto the Jews. All kinds of made-up stuff ensued. And since Christians knew it wasn’t true about them, some of them apparently believed it was true of the Jews. Meanwhile, since Jews knew it wasn’t true of them, they often believed it was true about Christians.
As others have noted in this thread, both Christians and Jews were evangelically spreading their religion during Roman times. Jews converted Christians to Judaism, and Christians converted Jews, and both went after Gentiles. Some people bobbed back and forth, or joined closely related heretical or occult faiths.
So as you would expect, there was some badmouthing done on both sides, while other folks managed to be civil to both sides.
So no, anti-Semitism was never doctrinal. But it was an idea that carried its poison through time, sometimes fought down and sometimes encouraged, even by those who should have known better. It was a lot easier for people to externalize all of Christ’s suffering as having been caused by “the Jews” or “Herod” or “Pontius Pilate,” rather than by themselves personally, and all humanity as a group, being sinners. But blaming everybody else but Christians was heretical and creepy.
Re: language in the Gospels about “the Jews,” of course they were written by Jews. But more to the point, it was supposed to be pointing out that the people of the principality of Judaea, who should have known better because they were the people of the old kingdom of Judah, were the ones who were screwing up at those points. (As opposed to the people from other Jewish groups and areas.) So even though John, for example, was a Judaean, he was blaming his own folks as opposed to the Galileans or Samaritans. This tied into some of the Scriptural prophecies and warnings, so it was seen as important to point out. But later people read it wrong.
(Like the song says, “Blame Canada!”)
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: Chrysostom, he was writing during a time when Jewish evangelism was suddenly very very successful, in what Christians comfortably supposed was always going to be a Christian empire now. Christian heresies were also going wild, to the point that a single city might have several “bishops.”
So yeah, he freaked out a tad. But apparently some of the Byzantine Jewish evangelists used equally strong language… It was a time of hyperbole in public speaking.
There are some funny bits, though. Apparently it wasn’t easy to be keeping a strict Byzantine Lent, with no meat or dairy or eggs, when your Jewish neighbors were running grill restaurants. And when nobody Christian keeping Lent could go to theaters or sports events, the Jews were running events and holding parties. That part cracked me up pretty hard, because obviously that had happened all the time during pagan times, and yet Christians had sucked it up. (Or at least good Christians did.) But now that there wasn’t all the persecution, people were tempted to convert by market food! Heh!
Did I mention that he used pretty strong language about his fellow Catholics, too?
So yeah, he freaked out a tad. But apparently some of the Byzantine Jewish evangelists used equally strong language… It was a time of hyperbole in public speaking.
There are some funny bits, though. Apparently it wasn’t easy to be keeping a strict Byzantine Lent, with no meat or dairy or eggs, when your Jewish neighbors were running grill restaurants. And when nobody Christian keeping Lent could go to theaters or sports events, the Jews were running events and holding parties. That part cracked me up pretty hard, because obviously that had happened all the time during pagan times, and yet Christians had sucked it up. (Or at least good Christians did.) But now that there wasn’t all the persecution, people were tempted to convert by market food! Heh!
Did I mention that he used pretty strong language about his fellow Catholics, too?
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
C
curious_cath
Guest
So what about Joe and his definition?
- Status