Palestinian Christians practice neo-marcionism?

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian----

Thanks for the link to Harkins’ translation.

I didn’t misrepresent the traditional title given to this series of sermons. A reading of Harkins’ preface and introduction makes that clear.

Harkins, himself, also calls the writings anti-Semitic a number of times.

Without negating the value of Chrysostom’s other sermons and writings, in this series of sermons it’s accurate to say that he literally demonizes Jews and the synagogue in an effort to keep Christians away from them. Though his audience was Christians and not Jews, the object of his over-the-top vituperation is Jews; hence the traditional Greek and Latin title.

I don’t doubt that Chrysostom thought he was doing a good thing for the safety of his flock. Leaders need to find a balance between (a perceived need for) protection and correction of those in their care versus a too-controlling attitude. Chrysostom may have struck that balance better at other times than in these sermons.

However, what never works well in the long term is using demonization of others to keep the flock at home, as Chrysostom attempts to do in these sermons.

At some point in our pluralistic society the sheep will get curious and make the discovery that “they” are also fully human and deserving of dignity.

Abide,

You see what you want to see. I have a copy of that translation and he never says it is anti-semitic. He says that people construe the writings as anti-semitic.

It is not anti-semitic. It is anti Judaism not anti Jew. You may want to consider the words of Jesus himself in describing the broods of vipers, blind guides, whited sepulchers and other such descriptions of Judaism at the time not the Jews. Paul does the same in describing what Judaism not Jews are doing. Chrysostom writes in a similar way.

I have copied and pasted a footnote for you and suggest that anyone interested in understanding what it was he was writing get the book for themselves.

I am always amused at those I have dialogued with that are Protestant. I routinely hear “balance”…I am unable to decipher what this means. Did any of those writings in the Bible strike a balance or just tell the truth.

This is the Latin translation of the title given to the homilies in PG 48.843.
The Benedictine editor, Montfaucon, gives a footnote (reprinted ibid.)
which states that six MSS and [Henry] Savile [in his edition (1612) of
Chrysostom] have at the head of this homily: “A discourse against the
Jews; but it was delivered against those who were Judaizing and keeping
the fasts with them *.” This note is not altogether accurate
because Savile, for Horn. 27 of Vol. 6 (which is Disc. I among the Adversus
ludaeos in PG and in this translation), gives (p. 366) the title: “Chrysos-
tom’s Discourse Against Those Who Are Judaizing and Observing Their
Fasts.” In Vol. 8 (col. 798) Savile states that he has emended Hoeschel’s
edition of this homily with the help of two Oxford MSS, one from Corpus
Christi College and the other from New College; he must have gotten his
title from any or all of these sources. Savile gives all eight of the homilies
Adversus ludaeos (Vol. 6.312-88) but in the order IV-VIII (which are
entitled Kata loudaion, i.e., Adversus ludaeos), I (with the title given
above), III and II (with the titles affixed to them in our translation).
Because of the titles in both some MSS and editions and because of the
arguments which will be set forth in this Introduction, we feel justified in
calling this work Against Judaizing Christians rather than giving it the less
irenic and somewhat misleading traditional title Against the Jews. See
above, Preface and Disc. 1.1.4, where Chrysostom says: **“Another veryserious illness [Judaizing] calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness
which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must root
this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must cure
those who are our own and then be concerned for others who are
strangers.” ***We shall often refer to the Discourses under the traditional
title Adversus ludaeos for brevity’s sake.

These discourses are not directed at people. These discourses are directed towards an ailment or practice of people. The people are not condemned. Their practices are in the context of diluting the Faith delivered from the Apostles.

Sheep are stupid as you know. I doubt that sheep will realize that they are human. There is no need to consider that Chrysostom is suggesting that Jews are not in need of dignity. You did not reference some of what Chrysostom writes at the end of his sermons.

So speak these words to them, read aloud to them these texts. Show all your zeal in saving them. and Let us pray that they be set free from this observance of days…So then do not neglect the salvation of these brothers…be meddlesome, be busy bodies…but bring back the sick ones to Christ…

Note that in the footnote I provided he calls those people…those who are are own and those that are strangers…not one word of demonization.

Note he makes no mention of lowering oneself to the heathens…he calls them brothers…perhaps inability to see and read what is there is also an ailment that is rampant…bring back the sick ones to Christ…is that not what Evangelicals believe that they are doing?

 

[AbideWithMe]

CopticChristian—

Please read the whole preface and introduction. Please read it again.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

Please read the whole preface and introduction. Please read it again.

A,

I suggest you draw attention to what it is that concerns you. I have no time to read and reread just because you ask. What concerns you in the preface. Be specific and I will address it.

You are able to take a bible quote from Romans and throw it out there. I ask that Protestants read the entire letter to the Romans for understanding. I am willing to point out where Romans 10:9 cannot be a point of departure as a theologic tenet for a formula for salvation.

Point out to me what you want me to see. I do not ask what I am not willing to do.

 

[AbideWithMe]

CopticChristian----

However, what never works well in the long term is using demonization of others to keep the flock at home, as Chrysostom attempts to do in these sermons.

At some point in our pluralistic society the sheep will get curious and make the discovery that “they” are also fully human and deserving of dignity.

For the sake of clarity, by “they” I don’t mean the sheep of one religious leader’s flock will discover they themselves are human. I meant it as an “us vs. them” reference; IOW, as an illustration, a Protestant who was raised with demonizing anti-Catholic rhetoric, or a Catholic who was raised with demonizing anti-Protestant rhetoric, at some point may hopefully recognize the need to guard the dignity of those who aren’t quite like themselves.

 

[chosen_people]

CopticChristian----

Thanks for the link to Harkins’ translation.

I didn’t misrepresent the traditional title given to this series of sermons. A reading of Harkins’ preface and introduction makes that clear.

Harkins, himself, also calls the writings anti-Semitic a number of times.

Without negating the value of Chrysostom’s other sermons and writings, in this series of sermons it’s accurate to say that he literally demonizes Jews and the synagogue in an effort to keep Christians away from them. Though his audience was Christians and not Jews, the object of his over-the-top vituperation is Jews; hence the traditional Greek and Latin title.

I don’t doubt that Chrysostom thought he was doing a good thing for the safety of his flock. Leaders need to find a balance between (a perceived need for) protection and correction of those in their care versus a too-controlling attitude. Chrysostom may have struck that balance better at other times than in these sermons.

However, what never works well in the long term is using demonization of others to keep the flock at home, as attempts to do in these sermons.

At some point in our pluralistic society the sheep will get curious and make the discovery that “they” are also fully human and deserving of dignity.

Thank you for your posts concerning the work 8 homilies against the Jews.

The term “Jews” and the term “Judaizers” are not interchangeable and are both used by Chrysostom in his 8 homilies against the Jews. Suffice it to say that Chrysostom is not claiming that the “Judaizers” killed the Jesus figure but that this is the work of “the Jews”. and for this crime they are sub human cattle fit only for slaughter.

The second thing is that many people who find nothing wrong with the 8 homilies against the Jews, also invariably understand and justify the placing of Jews in ghettos, making them wear badges marking them as Jews, blood purity rules, book burnings of the Talmud and other Jewish texts,the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Mortara to name just a few of the gifts bestowed upon the Jews by the Church.

Many of the people who wish to defend a work such as 8 homilies against the Jews, also believe that they are the ones who get to decide what constitutes anti-Semitism. This definition invariably states that one can say anything about Jews and Judaism and unless one specifically states that Jews are inferior, then it is not anti-Semitism. So they believe you can say that the Jews are the spawn of the Devil, they reject God and are cursed forever, and that wouldn’t be anti-Semitic in their eyes. A modern example is found in the concept of “Jewish naturalism” as put forward by Fr. Denis Fahey. Incidentally, all these non anti-Semites are also vehemently opposed to Jews having a right of self determination (Zionism) as this would indicate that an eternal covenant is in fact eternal.

Over the centuries tens upon tens of thousands of Jews have been murdered to the cry of “convert or die”. The first Holocaust of European Jews did not occur in the 20th Century it occurred during the Crusades where between 1/4 to 1/2 of European Jewry was murdered. I for one believe that the ideas put forward in the 8 homilies against the Jews and similar works were a possible contributing factor in causing Catholic adherents to believe that it was morally acceptable to murder men, women and children for the crime of being Jewish.

 

[AbideWithMe]

A,

I suggest you draw attention to what it is that concerns you. I have no time to read and reread just because you ask. What concerns you in the preface. Be specific and I will address it.

You are able to take a bible quote from Romans and throw it out there. I ask that Protestants read the entire letter to the Romans for understanding. I am willing to point out where Romans 10:9 cannot be a point of departure as a theologic tenet for a formula for salvation.

Point out to me what you want me to see. I do not ask what I am not willing to do.

Okay, I’ll quote the parts in the preface and introduction that are relevant. I have to get back to work now and I plan to be out this evening, though.

 

[Contarini]

Naim Ateek became the unofficial founder of the movement called Christian Palestianism when he established Sabeel. And yes he wrote it in his book **Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation **as a suggestion. But his followers took it a little further. Philip Saad, a Palestinian Christian who lives in Haifa, Israel said that:

You’re still unable to support your claims by actual, in-context citations of Palestinian Christians who hold the views you criticize. You keep citing their opponents. Why?

I am sorry if there are Palestinian Christians who reject the Old Testament. But you have not shown this to be the case. Saad might simply mean that some Palestinian Christians don’t use the OT as a source for their theology in the way he wants them to. It’s just too vague and indirect to mean much.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I really like what Rev. Innokenty Pavlov, professor of theology at Moscow’s Biblical Theological Institute regarding Israel and antisemetism.

Sadly, there are some Orthodox Christians who propagate disgusting anti-Semitism under the banner of Orthodoxy, which is incompatible with Christianity," “We have to raise our voices and call on Orthodox laity and the Church leadership to formulate an official position of the Orthodox Church toward our relations with Judaism, as it was formulated a few decades ago by the Catholic Church”.

I agree entirely with this. There is a problem of anti-Semitism in some Orthodox circles. But it’s monstrously unjust to equate rejection of Zionist political ideology (and/or of the unorthodox, innovative dispensationalist theology that causes some Christians to support this ideology) with anti-Semitism.

Whatever became of calling for justice for all people, regardless of their ethnicity? Isn’t that what Christians should be doing?

Christian Zionists are treating the Arabs in much the same way Christians once treated the Jews.

I don’t get it, how can the Jews who practiced Jewish customs and traditions for centuries NOT be the historic people of Israel

Well, for one thing, the New Testament makes it very clear that being part of the historic people of God isn’t just about cultural customs and traditions (indeed, I’d say that this is found in the OT as well).

That doesn’t mean that Jews aren’t, only that the continued practice of “Jewish customs and traditions” isn’t decisive theologically.

And in the second place, Israel was founded as a secular state. It’s a political entity and not simply identical with the historic Jewish people.

So there are two questions here:

1. The relationship between the religion/cultural tradition of Judaism after A.D. 70 and the “Second Temple Judaism” that existed before A. D. 70 (and, of course, “First Temple” Hebrew religion before that); and
2. The relationship between the modern political entity called “the state of Israel” and the historic Jewish people.

and to say the least revive a dead language that is Hebrew? What about the Continuous Jewish Presence in the Holy Land?

Indeed, what about it? It seems to contradict the claim that opposing the state of Israel means opposing the presence of Jews in the Holy Land (let alone opposing the existence of the Jewish people, period). Obviously Jews lived in the Holy Land for centuries without Israel. (I’m not disputing that it would be much harder for Jews to exist in the Holy Land after the state of Israel was destroyed than it was for them to live there before the state of Israel was formed–nor am I ignorant that it was hard enough for them even then.)

Did we forgot the scattering and gathering part of the bible?

This is one of the really annoying features of those influenced by dispensationalist theology. You speak as if those who disagree with you have “forgotten” or failed to notice certain things in the Bible, when in fact we simply interpret them differently.

I don’t know whether or not the formation of the state of Israel may be one fulfillment of the language about gathering Israel. It certainly is not, from a Christian perspective, the most important fulfillment. John 11:52, for instance, takes the words of Caiaphas about one man dying for the people and interprets them more broadly–that Jesus came to die not only for Israel but “to gather in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.” That’s just one example of the many places where the NT takes OT prophecy about the gathering of Israel and gives it this broader sense.

Again, that doesn’t mean that God has abandoned a special care for the Jewish people (defined in the post-AD-70 sense). But if the New Testament is true at all (and indeed if the very Hebrew prophets to whom Zionists appeal are true), then that special care is in the interests of God’s plan to bring all humanity into a saving relationship with Himself. And serving that plan involves working for justice for all people, whether Jews or Arabs or whoever they may be.

I believe Jews and Greeks (all orthodox) should walk together, for the reason that God favored them both. Yes the word is favored. Both peoples were endowed with distinct qualities serving to fulfill God’s redemptive plan for all the nations of the earth. What I am having difficulty with is the idea that the Greeks became extremely legalistic and inflexible that they can’t discern the lessons of the Fig tree today.

I am more ready to believe that Jews continue to have a special place in God’s purposes than that Greeks do. But as long as you say that this is about fulfilling God’s redemptive plan for all peoples, and (which may be the real point of conflict between us), as long as you accept that this redemptive plan involves justice for all human beings, I don’t disagree.

If the idea of a “chosen people” is being used to oppress one particular group of people–as it clearly is in the Palestinian situation–then it’s being corrupted and distorted and has become anti-Christian.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you for your posts concerning the work 8 homilies against the Jews.

 

[AbideWithMe]

A,

I suggest you draw attention to what it is that concerns you. I have no time to read and reread just because you ask. What concerns you in the preface. Be specific and I will address it.

Here, briefly, is the first of several places in the preface and introduction where Harkins himself uses “anti-Semitic”.

In the preface----
“It is true that Chrysostom could hardly have delivered the Discourses in their present form after Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Church’s Attitude Toward Non-Christian Religions”…(citing of section omitted by me)…Chrysostom held the position, which was common for centuries, that all Jews are responsible for Christ’s passion and death, that they have been repudiated and cursed by God, and that they stand condemned out of the mouths of their own prophets. His position on these points is no longer tenable. Even if he was motivated by an over-zealous pastoral spirit,many of his remarks are patently anti-Semitic. For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he was a product of his times.”

A few paragraphs above that, Harkins explains why he is not using the traditional title given in Greek (Kata Ioudaion) and Latin (Adversus Iudaeos) (in English–“Against the Jews”) to his translation. My point was not that Harkin’s title is completely unreasonable, but that it is not the most common tradional title, and that I was not misrepresenting it in my earlier post when I called them Chrysostom’s sermons against the Jews and “Judaizers”.

As a quick note before I go out, I think “Judaizers” seems to be being used in two different ways. The Judaizers of Paul’s letters to the Galations and Romans said that all Christians must follow the Law. From reading the sermons themselves, Harkin’s introduction, and academic discussion of them, I think it likely that Chysostom’s “Judaizers” were not seeking to impose the Law on all Christians, and so they can’t fairly be compared to Paul’s Judaizers. I will discuss this tomorrow

 

[CopticChristian]

Here, briefly, is the first of several places in the preface and introduction where Harkins himself uses “anti-Semitic”.

In the preface----
“It is true that Chrysostom could hardly have delivered the Discourses in their present form after Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Church’s Attitude Toward Non-Christian Religions”…(citing of section omitted by me)…Chrysostom held the position, which was common for centuries, that all Jews are responsible for Christ’s passion and death, that they have been repudiated and cursed by God, and that they stand condemned out of the mouths of their own prophets. His position on these points is no longer tenable. Even if he was motivated by an over-zealous pastoral spirit,many of his remarks are patently anti-Semitic. For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he was a product of his times.”

A few paragraphs above that, Harkins explains why he is not using the traditional title given in Greek (Kata Ioudaion) and Latin (Adversus Iudaeos) (in English–“Against the Jews”) to his translation. My point was not that Harkin’s title is completely unreasonable, but that it is not the most common tradional title, and that I was not misrepresenting it in my earlier post when I called them Chrysostom’s sermons against the Jews and “Judaizers”.

As a quick note before I go out, I think “Judaizers” seems to be being used in two different ways. The Judaizers of Paul’s letters to the Galations and Romans said that all Christians must follow the Law. From reading the sermons themselves, Harkin’s introduction, and academic discussion of them, I think it likely that Chysostom’s “Judaizers” were not seeking to impose the Law on all Christians, and so they can’t fairly be compared to Paul’s Judaizers. I will discuss this tomorrow

I believe that the Judaizers of Paul’s day were different as you might expect since the Church in Chrysostoms day was years removed. The sentiment continued in that the Church was no longer just a bunch of people forming a belief system that was foreign to Judaism that thrived at the time of Paul…but a Judaism that had to contend with a growing Church. You may want to rethink Paul and read here what he says in Phillipians.

2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Do you say that Paul too is anti-semitic?

The only way to understand is to accept the continuum of thought from the Jerusalem Council, letter to Romans, Galatians and then understand Chrysostom faced a similar problem…Christianity stood at odds with Judaism…it is only when you can read the letter to the Romans as a diatribe against Judaizing Christians that you can see this.

Chrysostom quotes Paul in his sermon and elsewhere.

 

[chosen_people]

chosen people;9161005:

Chosen,

Where do you find Chrysostom saying that Jews are fit for slaughter?

Many people does not include all people. I do not agree with the treatment of humans as you are describing. I do not believe that you can equate Chrysostom and associate reading of Chrysostom with what you say. That is a far stretch.

Many of the people who defend Chrysostom is again a generalization. The Acts of the Apostles record Peter saying that we do not need to impose the Old Covenant on Christians, the letter to the Romans says we do not need to impose the Old Covenant on Christians and Chrysostom speaks in the same mode as Peter and Paul. You believe this to be anti-semitic. I agree that the notion of anti-semitism is dependent on who defines it. Here is the dictionary definition. It is open ended.

I have no prejudice, I am not hostile, I do not discriminate. I love those that say as I will “some of my best friends are Jewish”. The truth is I grew up in a neighborhood that was multi-cultural. The Jewish family that owned the bakery were some of the nicest people I ever met. They were always kind and loving to me when I was a child. I dated many Jewish women and presently have Jewish friends and colleagues. That does not dissuade me from believing that Peter, Paul and Chrysosotom had a point to make when they said and wrote what they wrote. Jews do not evangelize, at least none that I know. They were in the days of Chrysosotom. Times are different.

You can believe what you will. I honestly doubt that many Catholics are aware of or have read Chrysostom’s 8 homilies. I became aware of them only after I studied the letter to the Romans and realized that it is a polemic against Judiazing Christians. It was when I searched “Judaizing Christians” that I came across a discussion of Peter in the council of Jerusalem, Paul and the letter to the Romans and then found Chrysosotom. I searched high and low until I just had to buy the book.

I read the book. I don’t hate Jews. I just see Chrysosotom as writing in the same stream of thought as Luke, Paul…and what Chrysostom faced at the time.

Shalom…

I made no personal statements concerning your attitudes toward Jews, which of course are unknown to me. By using the phrase “many of the people” it was my intention to allow for the benefit of the doubt for all, even though this is difficult given the obvious content of the work.

As to your question:“Where do you find Chrysostom saying that Jews are fit for slaughter?”

" Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer”. And still another called the Jews “an untamed calf”.

(6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”.

This animal, subhuman motif is repeated. Jews are compared the dogs. In another passage He describes how Jews have demons in their souls, he claims Jews sacrificed their children to demons, Jews are inhuman, worse than wild beasts :

" They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.

(8) Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. “They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife”. He did not say: “Everyone lusted after his neighbor’s wife”, but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts."

I could give numerous examples of the horrendous things said about the Jews in this work, but I don"t think it they should be given a wider forum.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;9162074:

I made no personal statements concerning your attitudes toward Jews, which of course are unknown to me. By using the phrase “many of the people” it was my intention to allow for the benefit of the doubt for all, even though this is difficult given the obvious content of the work.

As to your question:“Where do you find Chrysostom saying that Jews are fit for slaughter?”

" Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer”. And still another called the Jews “an untamed calf”.

(6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”.

This animal, subhuman motif is repeated. Jews are compared the dogs. In another passage He describes how Jews have demons in their souls, he claims Jews sacrificed their children to demons, Jews are inhuman, worse than wild beasts :

" They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.

(8) Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. “They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife”. He did not say: “Everyone lusted after his neighbor’s wife”, but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts."

I could give numerous examples of the horrendous things said about the Jews in this work, but I don"t think it they should be given a wider forum.

I would ask that you give me page numbers and that would help otherwise these are just words.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t agree that the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians. It seems to me the Palestinians are trying to bleed them dry by a million cuts. They kill indiscriminately – a bride on her wedding day, children with their grandparents – it’s beyond belief. Anyone who can assert any moral equivalency between the Israelis and the Palestinians is in my belief morally obtuse.

 

[chosen_people]

CHRYSOSTOM AND THE JEWS OF ANTIOCH, pp. 163-166

from James Parkes: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, (New York: JPS, 1934)

"While in their writings Hilary and Eusebius introduced the pagan world to this strange version of Jewish history, Chrysostom expressed similar theories with much greater violence from his pulpit at Antioch. In eight sermons which he delivered in 387 he speaks with a bitterness and lack of restraint unusual even in that place and century {PG Vol 97). If it were not for the exegetical background which has already been shown, it would be impossible to explain, let alone excuse, his tone. Christianity was no longer in any danger. He himself had not, like Athanasius, ever known any persecution from the Jews, and the period of trial under Julian had been very short. Even had they been a menace in old times, the rich and powerful Jewish community of Antioch was now hemmed in, like every other, by numerous imperial edicts issued under Christian inspiration. Moreover, Chrysostom was a man whose character excited the admiration of his contemporaries. If he was hated by politicians for his unswerving firmness, he was loved by the multitudes, and his commentaries on the gospels are still read and studied in the Orthodox Church because of their deep spiritual beauty.

Such was the man who in eight sermons covering more than a hundred pages of closely printed text, has left us the most complete monument of the public expression of the Christian attitude to the Jews in the century of the victory of the Church. In these discourses there is no sneer too mean, no gibe too bitter for him to fling at the Jewish people. No text is too remote to be able to be twisted to their confusion, no argument is too casuistical, no blasphemy too startling for him to employ; and, most astonishing of all, at the end he turns to the Christians, and in words full of sympathy and toleration he urges them not to be too hard on those who have erred in following Jewish practices or in visiting Jewish synagogues. Dealing with the Christians, no text which urges forgiveness is forgotten: dealing with the Jews only one verse of the New Testament is omitted: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’.

The only explanation of his bitterness contained in the sermons themselves is the too close fellowship between Jews and Christians in Antioch. There is no single suggestion that the Jews were immoral or vicious; no suggestion that Christians were actually corrupted by the contact, either in their morals or their orthodoxy. Only one contemporary event is referred to at all, apart from general denunciations of the visiting of the synagogue at times of Jewish feast or fast. This was the case of a Christian woman who was taken into a Jewish house to take an oath in a business affair, because the Christian with whom she had to deal believed that an oath taken in the Jewish manner was more binding than any other. What the actual affair was we are not told. To Chrysostom’s eyes the crime was that a Christian woman had been taken into a Jewish house, not that she had been seduced or taught heretical doctrine or anything else. It was enough that she had been made to enter the house [Sermon I:3]".

 

[chosen_people]

chosen people;9162809:

I would ask that you give me page numbers and that would help otherwise these are just words.

see;

Homily I (II) (5 end - 6)

Homily I (VI) (7 end - 8)

Homily i (II) (2)

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here, briefly, is the first of several places in the preface and introduction where Harkins himself uses “anti-Semitic”.

In the preface----
“It is true that Chrysostom could hardly have delivered the Discourses in their present form after Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Church’s Attitude Toward Non-Christian Religions”…(citing of section omitted by me)…Chrysostom held the position, which was common for centuries, that all Jews are responsible for Christ’s passion and death, that they have been repudiated and cursed by God, and that they stand condemned out of the mouths of their own prophets. His position on these points is no longer tenable. Even if he was motivated by an over-zealous pastoral spirit,many of his remarks are patently anti-Semitic. For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he was a product of his times.”

CopticChristian—

In response to your question from a few posts ago—No, I do not say that Paul was anti-Semitic. Absolutely not!

Rather it is you, by apparently continuing to link Chrysostom’s sermons as if they were simply in the same vein as Paul’s letters, that slanders Paul.

To quote Harkins once again–Did Paul “hold the position that all Jews are responsible for Christ’s passion and death” and that “they have been repudiated and cursed by God” as Harkins here describes Chysostom’s beliefs?

This was my reason for quoting Romans 11:28 earlier. Did Paul believe Jews were repudiated by God? In time, as Harkins notes, this became a common belief among early Christianity and we can see it expressed by Chysostom. But here’s what Paul says in Romans—“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.” Or, in Romans 11:1-2–“I ask then, did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew.”

Did Jesus or Paul “hold the position that all Jews are responsible” for His passion and death, which was a common belief in early Christianity, and as dhzeremi’s video showed, still held by some Christians? Absolutely not! Jesus’ prayer, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” was not some token bit of fluff that He spoke from the cross! How on earth can any Christian —whether Chrysostom or the Orthodox Archbishop in dhzeremi’s video—hold Jews responsible for Christ’s death?

I hate to belabor the point, CopticChristian, but before talking about the meanings of “Judaizing” I have to ask you to publically acknowledge that Harkins, who was in a much, much better position that you to assess whether or not Chrysostom’s sermons contained anti-Semitism, did in fact write that they did. I’m not trying to embarrass you, but your public linkage of Paul’s spirit with Chrysostom’s as regards Jews requires, I believe, a public apology or you slander Paul.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

In response to your question from a few posts ago—No, I do not say that Paul was anti-Semitic. Absolutely not!

Rather it is you, by apparently continuing to link Chrysostom’s sermons as if they were simply in the same vein as Paul’s letters, that slanders Paul.

To quote Harkins once again–Did Paul “hold the position that all Jews are responsible for Christ’s passion and death” and that “they have been repudiated and cursed by God” as Harkins here describes Chysostom’s beliefs?

This was my reason for quoting Romans 11:28 earlier. Did Paul believe Jews were repudiated by God? In time, as Harkins notes, this became a common belief among early Christianity and we can see it expressed by Chysostom. But here’s what Paul says in Romans—“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.” Or, in Romans 11:1-2–“I ask then, did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew.”

Did Jesus or Paul “hold the position that all Jews are responsible” for His passion and death, which was a common belief in early Christianity, and as dhzeremi’s video showed, still held by some Christians? Absolutely not! Jesus’ prayer, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” was not some token bit of fluff that He spoke from the cross! How on earth can any Christian —whether Chrysostom or the Orthodox Archbishop in dhzeremi’s video—hold Jews responsible for Christ’s death?

I hate to belabor the point, CopticChristian, but before talking about the meanings of “Judaizing” I have to ask you to publically acknowledge that Harkins, who was in a much, much better position that you to assess whether or not Chrysostom’s sermons contained anti-Semitism, did in fact write that they did. I’m not trying to embarrass you, but your public linkage of Paul’s spirit with Chrysostom’s as regards Jews requires, I believe, a public apology or you slander Paul.

Abide,

Hate not. Labor is toil We all toil. Unless you see Paul letter to the Romans as against Judaizing Christians then you cannot see what I see. Harkins on the other hand does not say as you say…he points that Chrysostom may be seen…

(11) Chrysostom’s discourses, however, have a special interest and
importance for the history of the anti-Semitic question because of
their undoubted novelty and originality. Although he may be using
merely rhetorical devices in his direct attacks against Judaism, its
beliefs, and practices, his argumentation could at times be called
offensive. Here he goes far beyond any earlier Christian polemicist.
Also, his predecessors for the most part wrote in a conventional
form; Chrysostom’s sermons71 were actually delivered before
publication and aimed at a definite adversary. Earlier authors had
opposed Judaism in itself; Chrysostom assails the Jews of Antioch,
or more particularly the demi-Christians who were jeopardizing their
faith by their participation in Jewish practices.
(12) These Judaizing Christians must be reclaimed for the
Church; others who were weak and on the brink must be frightened
to keep them from falling. Hence, Chrysostom’-s language must be
strong in his instruction of the sick and his denunciation of their
disease. But what must not be forgotten is that his many direct
addresses to and accusations of the Jews must have been chiefly
rhetorical. After all, the eight sermons were preached in a Christian
church and to a Christian congregation; one can hardly expect that
many, if any, unconverted Jews were present to hear themselves
attacked.72
(13) Even though these discourses are sermons and no Jews may
have been present in the congregation, they have clearly played an
important part in the history of the whole question of anti-Semitism. Once they were transcribed, published, and added to the stream of patristic literature, they not only marked an important moment in the Church’s polemics against Judaism but they seem to have ex¬ercised an influence which went far beyond any specific occasion or local situation.
(14) In fact, as recently as 1967, Friedrich Heer73 accused
Chrysostom, along with Jerome and Augustine, of having presented
a picture of the Jews which had its effect on neurotic anti-Semites in
every historical crisis affecting the Jews for more than the next 1500
years. He further assigns to Chrysostom’s eight Discourses an
epoch-making significance because in them are found all the wea¬
pons used against the Jews down to the present day. They show
the Jews as sensual, slippery, voluptuous, avaricious, and possessed
by demons; the Jews are drunkards, harlots, and breakers of the
Law; they are the people who murdered the prophets, Christ, and
God.74 It is true that Chrysostom does speak of the Jews in these
coarse terms, but surely Heer has taken Chrysostom’s accusations
out of the context of sermons preached to a Christian congregation
in a Christian church.75(15) Whatever the effect of the sermons on the subsequent history of anti-Semitism, it is clear that the Judaizing movement in
Antioch was a menace to orthodox Christianity.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;9162874:

see;

Homily I (II) (5 end - 6)

Homily I (VI) (7 end - 8)

Homily i (II) (2)

In your first example, Chrysostom is quoting Romans, Matthew, Acts and Phillipians and preaching around those…

He calls the Jews pitiable…now that may seem offensive and that is a concern. This was written in the early years of Christianity and today…I would say I would personally reframe this…as

But do not be surprised that I call the Jews pitiable…to

But for me…I would say that it comes as not surprise that I have concern and sadness for the Jew in their plight and we should have concern for them…

What does it mean to pity…many things…I believe that the Jews were the chosen people and were chosen to deliver the Messiah that they deny…while I would think pity I would say sad…times have changed. We have spoken of this before…It is sad that you choose to look at the chosen people as the mechanism of the potter and the clay and I choose to look at the end result…the Pot or Jesus Christ and for the Jews not to see what I see is sad for me and I have empathy for their plight and their history.

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel…for no man is unequal before God because God is impartial for first the Jew, Gentile, Greek and Barbarian or Pagan…and Paul says himself…I do not apologoize to you for what I believe and would pray that you believe…I cannot nor will I force you to believe anything nor can I…

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

  24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen

16If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
26And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

2Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

51“You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

 

[AbideWithMe]

CopticChristian—

I don’t hate you–not at all. I do feel like I’m talking to a brick wall, though. Yesterday you said that Harkins “never says it is anti-semitic.” I gave you a direct, fairly lengthy quote from Harkins’ preface wherein he does in fact say “many of the remarks are patently anti-Semitic”. The part I quoted can be easily found in the preface to see its context. That is just one of the places where Harkins calls the some parts of the sermons anti-Semitic. Yet, you say Harkins doesn’t say what I’m saying he says? Excuse me?

The sermons are both anti-Jew and anti-Judaism. You are correct in saying they were anti-Judaism, but that doesn’t preclude the reality that they are also anti-Semitic.

Paul was not anti-Judaism, he was against Judaizing, if we give Judaizing the meaning of requiring all people to fully convert to Judaism and follow all of its laws in order to “share in the World to Come”. You may be interested to know that many other religious Jews in Paul’s time, not just Jewish Christians, were against Judaizing by this definition.

However, evidence seems to point to the likelihood that Chrysostom’s ideas on what constitutes Judaizing was not in line with what Paul meant by it. I would be interested to discussing this here, and sincerely open to dialogue and correction, but I do feel like you don’t even hear what I say, nor are you open to considering the evidence I give you, it seems to me.