Y
YankeeRC
Guest
I don’t see tha names Jesus, nor any of the 12 Apostles names nor St. Paul’s name attributed to any of those…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Crumpy
Guest
At the EWTN website, in the document library, there is a document called The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible (or something close to that).I think the Christian scriptures are pretty clear on this point. The Jews are poisonous snakes, the spawn of the Devil, thieves and robbers who kill and destroy. If this were not true why would it appear in the scriptures?
It says, without explanation, that the New Testament doesn’t speak more harshly of the Jews that does the Old Testament itself (if I remember the quote correctly).
David Klingenhoffer relates what the Jews have said about Christians, in his “Why the Jews Reject Jesus” book. Those things that Jews have said are pretty sizzling, too.
In this EWTN document, the Catholic Church says that the Jews are not responsible for the death of Jesus (as did the Second Vatican Council say, as I recall). It says that there is no scriptural basis for prejudice against Jews, no basis for anti-Semitism.
I recommend reading this, for anyone who needs to be dispossessed of any contrary opinion.
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
Dear Patrick,Not exactly a totally correct approach, as I’ve pointed out.
While there are some places in John in which “the Judaeans” may mean members of the Pharisaic party, there are also instances where it means a different group. Take for example the Passion accounts. It is “the Judaeans” who speak with Pilate; in one instance “the chief priests and the officers” are explicitly named (19:6). Despite popular misconception, identifying the chief priests with the Pharisees and their scribes is something not supported by either history or the Bible itself.
I think your explanation may be a bit of a stretch. Whether referred to as Jews or Judeans, the meaning would essentially be the same. Judah was the last remaining (faithful) tribe of the Jews, and Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish religion, also within the boundaries of Judah. It would seem that regardless of our appellation in English, the meaning of at least John, were the Jews and their chief priests and Pharisees and Saducees., by whatever name we have applied.
I appreciate your definitions and explanations, but they seem almost too linguistically specific.
Peace.
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
Please be patient with my research, which I am doing with all humility for comments made by members of the Catholic Church through history…we are a Church of sinners, and that may include Saints and Popes at various times.Well here’s how these passages were interpreted by people whom presumably, unlike myself, knew it is “wrong to make such a “chip on the shoulder” interpretation”.
If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are saying less than it deserves." - St. Jerome on the synagogue
Please quote the precise document of St. Jerome. Since he had a working realtionship with several rabbis in his translation, this seems questionable; I would like to see the context.
“Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people… We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews…our worship follows a …more convenient course… we desire, dearest brethren to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews… How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.” - Council of Nicea
I do not find this in a Canon of this Council; please specify.
“The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.” - St. Augustine
“Let no one in the priestly order nor and layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicine from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off.” -Canon II of the Quinisext Council
This council was condemned, I believe. The Pope at the time (did not attend) was under threat to sign by Emperor Justinian. I do not believe he even signed off on this “Council”.
History proves indeed that church authorities exercised at times considerable pressure upon the Jews to promote their conversion;"
Please respond to the above questions so I may proceed.
Peace.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Well, first off, Jerome said that kind of thing about his best friends and close associates (male ones, anyway). He could make eating oatmeal sound like a shameful insult when he was squabbling. (And he did, actually.)
However, nothing but this exact set of Anti-Semitism History factoids and quotes shows up when I search for this quote. That is the old Internet signal for “well-intentioned pack of lies”, usually. So it makes me suspicious.
Of all the people he fought long argumentative correspondences with, I don’t remember St. Jerome fighting with Jews. The only time I can find that hard words came up about a synagogue was in his fictional apologetics dialogue with a Luciferian (schismatic Christian group mad about bad bishops getting readmitted to the Church). The Luciferian called the Church the “synagogue of Satan and the Antichrist” (which was usually a name for members of heretical sects, and didn’t involve Jews at all) and then he called the Church many other naughty names. This sounds like it might be Mr. Fictitious Luciferian’s script.
However, nothing but this exact set of Anti-Semitism History factoids and quotes shows up when I search for this quote. That is the old Internet signal for “well-intentioned pack of lies”, usually. So it makes me suspicious.
Of all the people he fought long argumentative correspondences with, I don’t remember St. Jerome fighting with Jews. The only time I can find that hard words came up about a synagogue was in his fictional apologetics dialogue with a Luciferian (schismatic Christian group mad about bad bishops getting readmitted to the Church). The Luciferian called the Church the “synagogue of Satan and the Antichrist” (which was usually a name for members of heretical sects, and didn’t involve Jews at all) and then he called the Church many other naughty names. This sounds like it might be Mr. Fictitious Luciferian’s script.
T
Trolol
Guest
I love Jews. I’m having sex with one right now!!!
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I agree that the translation of Ioudiaoi as “Jews” has been the source of a great deal of anti-Semiticism, and probably vice versa.Why, in the New Testament, are the persecutors of Christ and his followers referred to as “the Jews?” Almost all of the participants were Jews. This always jars me and is the cause of much anti-Semiticsm. It does seem to suggest the author(s) were protecting the Romans, as modern defenders of Jews claim.
This translation error is, I think, best demonstrated in Acts 26:4, which essentially leaves Paul saying that “all the Jews” have known him since his youth. Really??? ALL the Jews…? Even accounting for some hyperbole, this can’t be the correct sense of Ioudiaoi.
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
I must admit that I cannot find, on the Internet, the above “quotation” from St. John Chrysotom, and the one (deleted) by St. Augustine, other than to have been repeated, over and over, by non-authorative sources. So I must ask for actual, verifiable, sources. Since you have not replied to my earlier request for a source for the St. Jerome “quote”, might it be that you have NO source, other than that these quotations, as a group, are repeated over and over (usually together), but without defined sources?Well here’s how these passages were interpreted by people whom presumably, unlike myself, knew it is “wrong to make such a “chip on the shoulder” interpretation”.
"The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ . . .The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christian may never cease vengeance, and the Jews must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews. – St. John Chrysotom
“The Jews’ guilt of the crucifixion of Jesus consigned them to perpetual servitude, and like Cain, they are to be wanderers and fugitives . . . the Jews will not dare to raise their necks, bowed under the yoke of perpetual slavery, against the reverence of the Christian faith.” - Pope Innocent III
History proves indeed that church authorities exercised at times considerable pressure upon the Jews to promote their conversion;"
Finally, I find that Innocent III was a protector of Jews, as you can read in his own words
fordham.edu/halsall/source/in3-constjews.html
and
fordham.edu/halsall/source/inn3-jews.html
As you can read, fairly plainly, the quotation you have offered falls somewhat flat on its face.
From the “original” Catholic Encyclopedia, your quote is correct, but incomplete. Please read the ENTIRE section and return with appropriate comments and questions.
If you are serious in pursuing these other allegations, please respond and I will continue my research into what you have found.
Otherwise, I will consider the matter incomplete, but done, due to lack of sources for your allegations.
Respectfully,
jim
F
fedupbeliever
Guest
What’s your game? Could you try being open?
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
This just showed up in my inbox. Not sure who/what it applies to. This thread has been dormant for awhile; are there new questions/comments/answers?What’s your game? Could you try being open?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.