Palestinian Christians practice neo-marcionism?

[AbideWithMe]

chosen people;9164346:

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…

CopticChristian—

It’s absolutely true that “no man is unequal before God”. There is no question of that. That belief is clear from both the Old and New Testament, as well as from natural law.

But who is saying that men are unequal before God? Is that what you really think Judaism is about? “God loves the Jews more than He loves other people”? If so, I can understand why you think you need to fight it. However, that’s a great misunderstanding. You’re fighting a strawman.

 

[CopticChristian]

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, 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.

Abide,

Brick walls take time to build. Page numbers that you quote from appear to be as difficult to get. Give me the page number you quote from.

Thank you

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;9164702:

CopticChristian—

It’s absolutely true that “no man is unequal before God”. There is no question of that. That belief is clear from both the Old and New Testament, as well as from natural law.

But who is saying that men are unequal before God? Is that what you really think Judaism is about? “God loves the Jews more than He loves other people”? If so, I can understand why you think you need to fight it. However, that’s a great misunderstanding. You’re fighting a strawman

.

Abide,

You ask a question. You then infer what you believe I think. You then make a statement. You then post a query that makes no sense in the context of what you believe I think and then conclude that I misunderstand and that I am fighting something.

Do you believe you read minds?

Do you believe you know what anyone thinks?

Do you often speak to others as if you know what they think and believe and then draw conclusions?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

Brick walls take time to build. Page numbers that you quote from appear to be as difficult to get. Give me the page number you quote from.

Thank you

CopticChristian—

If you go back to page 5 of this thread to the post where you provided a link to the book, you can find the paragraph I quoted on page x of the preface. There are a few blank pages before the preface, which is on pages ix, x,and xi.

You’re welcome.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

If you go back to page 5 of this thread to the post where you provided a link to the book, you can find the paragraph I quoted on page x of the preface. There are a few blank pages before the preface, which is on pages ix, x,and xi.

You’re welcome.

Abide,

This is the preface. I agree with his brief summary…If you continue to read an explanation of the times he goes on to say… xxxv, xxxvi

(9) When Chrysostom puts pagans and Jews on a par,6 2 he seems
to recognize the analogy between the demi-Christians who held on
to pagan practices and the demi-Christians who held fast to Jewish
ways and ritual. Both constitute dangers to the faith of his flock, but
the dangers from the Jews were more subtle,63 and, hence,
Chrysostom!s hostility against the Jews is greater. Therefore, in the
eight Discourses, he frequently and accusingly addresses the Jews,
and his uncomplimentary comments smack of an anti-Semitic
sentiment. **But in this he is not entirely removed from the literary
genre developed by many apologists who preceded and followed him
in attacking Jewish claims to be God’s chosen ones.**64

(
(10) If we look to the basis of their argumentation and the
exegetical method of interpreting the Old Testament,** Chrysostom’s
series of sermons belongs to the tradition of polemic literature which
begins, perhaps before A.D. 100, with the Epistle of Barnabas65 and is continued in the second century by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho.66 The chief Latin polemics of the third century are in the same tradition: Tertullian’s Adversus ludaeos6 7 and Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum testimonia.6 8 In the fourth century, but earlier than Chrysostom, we have two Greek anti-Semitic dialogues: one between Timothy and Aquila and another between Athanasius and Zacchaeus.69 About the same time, in the Syriac-speaking Church, we have an important collection of twenty-three addresses by Aphrahat; about twelve of these constitute in whole or part a critique of Judaism and show many parallels with Chrysostom’s homilies**.70

Harkins points out that much of what was thought was thought in common. I understand that someone would say that there was what is called anti-semitism with respect to what is written however in my opinion as the footnotes point out they were literary devices…such as…

64 Ladner, op. cit. 358-59, finds Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish polemical method very repellent when he applies the vituperations of Israel by its
prophets to the Jews of his own time. It is repellent to current tastes and,
furthermore, as good argumentation, it is of dubious efficacy unless
Chrysostom knew that the Antiochene Jews of his time were acting much
as their ancestors did in Jeremiah’s day. To equate the synagogue with thetheater and the bordello seems to be a rhetorical tour de force which aims
more at proving that all (hree offer grave risks to the Christian** rather **than,
as Ladner says, that all Jews are impure animals and demons.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

If you go back to page 5 of this thread to the post where you provided a link to the book, you can find the paragraph I quoted on page x of the preface. There are a few blank pages before the preface, which is on pages ix, x,and xi.

You’re welcome.

Abide,

So what is the point of all of this…to agree that what Chrysostom wrote could be seen as anti-semitic? Some see it that way and others do not. This is an impasse. I have a more important question for you…

If God is the Potter and the clay is his chosen people and Christ is the end result of His work…where is your focus?

Do you focus on the end result and understand the process or do you focus on the process and disregard the product?

 

[AbideWithMe]

AbideWithMe;9164906:

Abide,

You ask a question. You then infer what you believe I think. You then make a statement. You then post a query that makes no sense in the context of what you believe I think and then conclude that I misunderstand and that I am fighting something.

Do you believe you read minds?

Do you believe you know what anyone thinks?

Do you often speak to others as if you know what they think and believe and then draw conclusions?

CopticChristian—

I certainly don’t believe I read minds, and I don’t know what anyone thinks unless they express themselves…and even then there’s plenty of room for misunderstanding.

And so I asked you a series of questions. I was struck by your statement to chosenpeople
that no man is unequal before God…I wondered why you would bother to state the obvious. I wondered if somehow you felt that Jews believed they were God’s favorites,
and if that was why you stated to chosenpeople that no man is unequal before God.

I’m sorry if I seemed presumptuous. I have known people who do believe that Jews think they are God’s favorites, so I was trying to find out if that’s what you were thinking in what you wrote.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;9164927:

CopticChristian—

I certainly don’t believe I read minds, and I don’t know what anyone thinks unless they express themselves…and even then there’s plenty of room for misunderstanding.

And so I asked you a series of questions. I was struck by your statement to chosenpeople
that no man is unequal before God…**I wondered why you would bother to state the obvious. I wondered if somehow you felt that Jews believed they were God’s favorites, and if that was why you stated to chosenpeople that no man is unequal before God. **

I’m sorry if I seemed presumptuous. I have known people who do believe that Jews think they are God’s favorites, so I was trying to find out if that’s what you were thinking in what you wrote.

Abide,

Direct questions deserve direct answers. I state the obvious because I do.

Here is what I wrote to Chosen…

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…

I am not very original Paul said it first. If you go back and look at the letter to the Romans you will see that all I did was paraphrase Paul…He is my favorite person. I found it relevant to paraphrase Paul.

. 14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel

, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. **11For there is no partiality with God./**QUOTE]

You will discover that Paul quotes Genesis, Deuterotomy, Psalms, Isaiah etc. I unfortunately or fortunately have learned to incorporate the writings of Paul into my discussion from memory…like Paul…I do not quote verbatim…

OK

Protestants as I understand it believe that you must hear Scripture to believe for how can you believe if you have not heard…how can you confess what you do not know…

 

[AbideWithMe]

AbideWithMe;9165111:

Abide,

Direct questions deserve direct answers. I state the obvious because I do.

Here is what I wrote to Chosen…

I am not very original Paul said it first. If you go back and look at the letter to the Romans you will see that all I did was paraphrase Paul…He is my favorite person. I found it relevant to paraphrase Paul.

You will discover that Paul quotes Genesis, Deuterotomy, Psalms, Isaiah etc. I unfortunately or fortunately have learned to incorporate the writings of Paul into my discussion from memory…like Paul…I do not quote verbatim…

That was a direct answer, and that’s fine.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

I have a more important question for you…

If God is the Potter and the clay is his chosen people and Christ is the end result of His work…where is your focus?

Do you focus on the end result and understand the process or do you focus on the process and disregard the product?

CopticChristian—

This isn’t making any sense to me as far as it being an apt analogy. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t seem like a relevant question in regards to anything I think.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

This isn’t making any sense to me as far as it being an apt analogy. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t seem like a relevant question in regards to anything I think.

Abide,

Then if it does not make sense and you do not see it as relevant then that is your answer.

 

[Contarini]

A couple points about Chrysostom:

1. Anti-Semitic is an anachronistic term. Chrysostom is addressing religious issues, not racial ones. Anti-Jewish is certainly a fair description. This point was made (in my hearing) by the Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen (and if anyone here has read her rather vitriolic comments on Mel Gibson’s Passion movie, you know that she’s not overly inclined to let Christians off the hook).
2. As Fredriksen and the Catholic scholar Robert Wilken have both pointed out, Chrysostom was not pushing for persecution of Jews–he was attacking Christians who attended synagogues (as I am about to do on Friday evening, taking some of my students on a field trip). Wilken’s book John Chrysostom and the Jews is the most authoritative scholarly work so far on this subject.

That doesn’t make Chrysostom’s rhetoric OK. But a lot of nonsense has been said about these sermons by folks who were reading them in the light of the Holocaust (or of later medieval Christian persecution of Jews) rather than in light of their actual, fourth-century context.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

A couple points about Chrysostom:

1. Anti-Semitic is an anachronistic term. Chrysostom is addressing religious issues, not racial ones. Anti-Jewish is certainly a fair description. This point was made (in my hearing) by the Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen (and if anyone here has read her rather vitriolic comments on Mel Gibson’s Passion movie, you know that she’s not overly inclined to let Christians off the hook).
2. As Fredriksen and the Catholic scholar Robert Wilken have both pointed out, Chrysostom was not pushing for persecution of Jews–he was attacking Christians who attended synagogues (as I am about to do on Friday evening, taking some of my students on a field trip). Wilken’s book John Chrysostom and the Jews is the most authoritative scholarly work so far on this subject.

That doesn’t make Chrysostom’s rhetoric OK. But a lot of nonsense has been said about these sermons by folks who were reading them in the light of the Holocaust (or of later medieval Christian persecution of Jews) rather than in light of their actual, fourth-century context.

Edwin

Edwin,

Thanks for the referral to Wilken…I will see if I can get a copy.

CC

 

[AbideWithMe]

A couple points about Chrysostom:

1. Anti-Semitic is an anachronistic term. Chrysostom is addressing religious issues, not racial ones. Anti-Jewish is certainly a fair description. This point was made (in my hearing) by the Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen (and if anyone here has read her rather vitriolic comments on Mel Gibson’s Passion movie, you know that she’s not overly inclined to let Christians off the hook).
2. As Fredriksen and the Catholic scholar Robert Wilken have both pointed out, Chrysostom was not pushing for persecution of Jews–he was attacking Christians who attended synagogues (as I am about to do on Friday evening, taking some of my students on a field trip). Wilken’s book John Chrysostom and the Jews is the most authoritative scholarly work so far on this subject.

That doesn’t make Chrysostom’s rhetoric OK. But a lot of nonsense has been said about these sermons by folks who were reading them in the light of the Holocaust (or of later medieval Christian persecution of Jews) rather than in light of their actual, fourth-century context.

Edwin

Contarini—

How are you differentiating anti-Semitic from anti-Jewish?

It seems to me that “anti-Semitism” is a word whose meaning is hard to pin down. If it’s meant to label a specific racial prejudice, then, yes, calling parts of Chrysostom’s 8 sermons anti-Semitic is anachronistic. He wasn’t calling for the destruction of Jews as a race as people did later. I think it’s likely that he would have fully embraced any Jewish person as a fellow Christian if that Jew underwent conversion, so, certainly, he can’t be compared to someone like Hitler who was set on eradicating every last bit of Jewish ancestry that was traceable.

The Wikipedia article on antisemitism, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism tries to classify the different forms of anti-Semitism, such as religious, cultural, or ethnic antisemitism. One definition Wiki gives is from the U.S. Department of State: “hatred towards Jews–individually and as a group–that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.” Another definition from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2005, at the time an agency of the European Union, is, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as a hatred of Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Chrysostom directed himself towards vilifying the synagogue and the Jews therein. I don’t see why that can’t be considered religious antisemitism. Yes, he spoke in a smear campaign manner of the Jews and the synagogue to his Christian audience in order to keep them away from the synagogue, not because he was bent on destroying Jews themselves.

If you’re a Jew, though, there in Antioch, believing in good conscience before your Creator that you’re following the way He’s laid down for you in His laws which you as a Jew believe He has commanded you to follow perpetually, an attack and smear campaign against your religion and the character of your fellow Jews is probably going to feel like the attacker is trying to wipe you out.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini—

How are you differentiating anti-Semitic from anti-Jewish?

It seems to me that “anti-Semitism” is a word whose meaning is hard to pin down. If it’s meant to label a specific racial prejudice, then, yes, calling parts of Chrysostom’s 8 sermons anti-Semitic is anachronistic. He wasn’t calling for the destruction of Jews as a race as people did later. I think it’s likely that he would have fully embraced any Jewish person as a fellow Christian if that Jew underwent conversion, so, certainly, he can’t be compared to someone like Hitler who was set on eradicating every last bit of Jewish ancestry that was traceable.

Yes, that’s the way the distinction is made. It’s not uncontroversial–when Fredriksen embraced it in the conference session I attended several years ago, one of the scholars present challenged her quite sharply. There are those who say that it’s a meaningless distinction, but I don’t think that’s so, precisely for the reasons you just gave.

It is possible to use “anti-Semitism” for both and distinguish between “religious” and “racial” anti-Semitism. I think it’s clearer to have two completely different words.

If you’re a Jew, though, there in Antioch, believing in good conscience before your Creator that you’re following the way He’s laid down for you in His laws which you as a Jew believe He has commanded you to follow perpetually, an attack and smear campaign against your religion and the character of your fellow Jews is probably going to feel like the attacker is trying to wipe you out.

I don’t know if Jews in Antioch felt particularly attacked–again, according to Fredriksen Jews were not particularly threatened at this point. I would question this if it came from a less credentialed or a more pro-Christian scholar, because you have disturbing episodes in this same era such as Ambrose’s protest against Theodosius ordering the rebuilding of a synagogue destroyed by a Jewish mob. But I trust Fredriksen on this point unless I am shown clear evidence to the contrary.

That doesn’t take away from the disastrous resonances of Chrysostom’s words in terms of later Christian persecution of Jews and eventual Nazi anti-Semitism. All I’m saying is that it’s unfair to judge Chrysostom’s own intentions by the effect this rhetoric would later have in a very different cultural climate.

Also, bear in mind that Jews seem to have been quite anti-Christian as well. It’s the prolonged imbalance of power between the two groups (an imbalance which was just beginning to develop at this point) that made Jews the victims and Christians the aggressors in a one-sided fashion. Even in Chrysostom’s day it was still a matter of two religious groups in the Empire who didn’t like each other and traded condemnations.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

Contarini—

You’ve said that all very well.

Though I think it is reasonable in many ways to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism when it comes to discussion, especially academic discussion, I also think for popular use it’s reasonable to use anti-Semitism as a blanket term.

From having Orthodox Jewish friends, I think I also kind of understand that to an observant Jew there may not be a clean line of separation between denigration of Judaism and denigration of Jews. They believe—and I can see why—that they are faithfully following God’s path eternally given to them, and so to assume very negative and crude, coarse things about their character because they persistently observe Mosaic Law is to assault both Judaism and Jews. Chrysostom unfortunately makes those assumptions about character in the sermons, I believe.

That’s a very good point about the balance of power between Christians and Jews being in the early stages of changing in Chrysostom’s day. Certainly, I’ve seen Jews write terrible things about Christians. Reading Jewish/Christian history often makes me think that whichever group had the greater power tended to abuse their position…not that one group was inherently innocent and the other inherently abusive. Somehow, though, given the example of Jesus, I still expect more from Christians; not that they are better people in themselves, but because Jesus left such a startlingly clear example of what good leadership looks like. I believe we’ve learned from our mistakes, though.

As for my use of “attack”–well, I mean that on an emotional level, or more accurately as a reference to refraining from stripping individuals or groups of their human dignity.

 

[CopticChristian]

Contarini—

You’ve said that all very well.

**Though I think it is reasonable in many ways to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism when it comes to discussion, especially academic discussion, I also think for popular use it’s reasonable to use anti-Semitism as a blanket term. **
From having Orthodox Jewish friends, I think I also kind of understand that to an observant Jew there may not be a clean line of separation between denigration of Judaism and denigration of Jews. They believe—and I can see why—that they are faithfully following God’s path eternally given to them, and so to assume very negative and crude, coarse things about their character because they persistently observe Mosaic Law is to assault both Judaism and Jews. Chrysostom unfortunately makes those assumptions about character in the sermons, I believe.

That’s a very good point about the balance of power between Christians and Jews being in the early stages of changing in Chrysostom’s day. Certainly, I’ve seen Jews write terrible things about Christians. Reading Jewish/Christian history often makes me think that whichever group had the greater power tended to abuse their position…not that one group was inherently innocent and the other inherently abusive. Somehow, though, given the example of Jesus, I still expect more from Christians; not that they are better people in themselves, but because Jesus left such a startlingly clear example of what good leadership looks like. I believe we’ve learned from our mistakes, though.

As for my use of “attack”–well, I mean that on an emotional level, or more accurately as a reference to refraining from stripping individuals or groups of their human dignity.

Abide,

You stumbled onto a clear point of understanding. It is impossible to know what someone means when you percieve them to be anti-semitic when in fact they are not. The only way to know is to ask.

If someone were to say that they cannot stand Christians that quote the Bible…my response would be explain to me which Christians you are speaking of? In determining the response it may well be that it is not the quoting but rather other issues and the only way to know is to ask…what do you mean by that?

Judaism of today is not one thing. If someone were to say that they cannot understand Judaism then the question for me to ask is …what is your understanding of Judaism?

 

[CopticChristian]

Contarini—

You’ve said that all very well.

Though I think it is reasonable in many ways to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism when it comes to discussion, especially academic discussion, I also think for popular use it’s reasonable to use anti-Semitism as a blanket term.

From having Orthodox Jewish friends, I think I also kind of understand that to an observant Jew there may not be a clean line of separation between denigration of Judaism and denigration of Jews. They believe—and I can see why—that they are faithfully following God’s path eternally given to them, and so to assume very negative and crude, coarse things about their character because they persistently observe Mosaic Law is to assault both Judaism and Jews. Chrysostom unfortunately makes those assumptions about character in the sermons, I believe.

That’s a very good point about the balance of power between Christians and Jews being in the early stages of changing in Chrysostom’s day. Certainly, I’ve seen Jews write terrible things about Christians. Reading Jewish/Christian history often makes me think that whichever group had the greater power tended to abuse their position…not that one group was inherently innocent and the other inherently abusive. Somehow, though, given the example of Jesus, I still expect more from Christians; not that they are better people in themselves, but because Jesus left such a startlingly clear example of what good leadership looks like. I believe we’ve learned from our mistakes, though.

As for my use of “attack”–well, I mean that on an emotional level, or more accurately as a reference to refraining from stripping individuals or groups of their human dignity.

Abide,

Your earlier post was firm in your understanding and used that understanding to respond to the question. This is your later posting.

Contarini—

You’ve said that all very well.

Though I think it is reasonable in many ways to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism when it comes to discussion, especially academic discussion, I also think for popular use it’s reasonable to use anti-Semitism as a blanket term.

From having Orthodox Jewish friends, I think I also kind of understand that to an observant Jew there may not be a clean line of separation between denigration of Judaism and denigration of Jews. They believe—and I can see why—that they are faithfully following God’s path eternally given to them, and so to assume very negative and crude, coarse things about their character because they persistently observe Mosaic Law is to assault both Judaism and Jews. Chrysostom unfortunately makes those assumptions about character in the sermons, I believe.

That’s a very good point about the balance of power between Christians and Jews being in the early stages of changing in Chrysostom’s day. Certainly, I’ve seen Jews write terrible things about Christians. Reading Jewish/Christian history often makes me think that whichever group had the greater power tended to abuse their position…not that one group was inherently innocent and the other inherently abusive. Somehow, though, given the example of Jesus, I still expect more from Christians; not that they are better people in themselves, but because Jesus left such a startlingly clear example of what good leadership looks like. I believe we’ve learned from our mistakes, though.

As for my use of “attack”–well, I mean that on an emotional level, or more accurately as a reference to refraining from stripping individuals or groups of their human dignity.

It would appear that I do not see Chrysostom as anti-semitic and that is what I said. It is clear that some may see Chrysostom as anti-semitic and that is their perogative. Contarini suggested a further read and I suggest getting that book. I ordered it from the interlibrary exchange. After I read it I may repost this discussion about Chrysostom.

I still see this as a progression from The Acts of the Apostle, letter to the Romans, letter to the Galatians and seen in many of Pauls other letters, and Chrysostom as a continuum of thought. The reason I searched the internet for “Judaizing Christians” was because I came to believe and still believe that the letter to the Romans is a diaglogue from Romans 3-11 against Judaizing Christians. I came to believe this via Dr. Scott Hahn in an exposition on the Letter to the Romans. I did not come to this belief on my own.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi there, CopticChristian—

I wanted to let you know I saw your post. I’m sleepy now but I’ll re-read it tomorrow.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

Your earlier post was firm in your understanding and used that understanding to respond to the question. This is your later posting.

CopticChristian–

Did you accidently quote the same post from me twice in your own post? Which earlier post do you have in mind?..and what understanding do you mean?