Palestinian Christians practice neo-marcionism?

[CopticChristian]

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?

Abide,

Yes…erratta…this is what I meant to post…

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

and then

Originally Posted by 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.

I appreciate that there is understanding and a change of view.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Good morning, CopticChristian—

Hmm…I guess I didn’t write as clearly as I could have. I haven’t changed my view. In talking about distinguishing between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism in academic discussion, I wasn’t applying that to this particular discussion about Chrysostom’s sermons. I just meant that in a general way that, yes, there are times when a distinction is needed.

I thought, in various posts, that I wrote why I think Chrysostom not only spoke against Judaizers, but also against the character of the Jews as practioners of Judaism. In doing so, he goes further than simply being anti-Judaism. To give a parallel of why I make this distinction, I would venture to say that you are anti-Protestant, but I haven’t seen you make assumptions about the character of Protestants as practioners of Protestant beliefs.

And again, I think evidence points to the liklihood that Chrysostom’s “Judaizers” were not what Paul called Judaizers. I’ll try to talk about this later if I have time.

 

[CopticChristian]

Good morning, CopticChristian—

Hmm…I guess I didn’t write as clearly as I could have. I haven’t changed my view. In talking about distinguishing between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism in academic discussion, I wasn’t applying that to this particular discussion about Chrysostom’s sermons. I just meant that in a general way that, yes, there are times when a distinction is needed.

I thought, in various posts, that I wrote why I think Chrysostom not only spoke against Judaizers, but also against the character of the Jews as practioners of Judaism. In doing so, he goes further than simply being anti-Judaism. To give a parallel of why I make this distinction, I would venture to say that you are anti-Protestant, but I haven’t seen you make assumptions about the character of Protestants as practioners of Protestant beliefs.

And again, I think evidence points to the liklihood that Chrysostom’s “Judaizers” were not what Paul called Judaizers. I’ll try to talk about this later if I have time.

Abide,

I believe that there is a continuum. As you know since there were synagogues and no Churches early on many of the meeting were probably in homes or synagogues. The understanding of the New Covenant was not as apparent early on. The Old Covenant though dead was not apparent to all.

Acts 15:4-35 - On their arrival at Jerusalem [18] they (Paul and Barnabas) were welcomed by the Church, by the apostles and elders, and they reported how greatly God had worked with them. But some members of the Pharisees’ party who (in spite of Jesus’ earlier confrontations with them) had become believers stood up and declared that it was absolutely essential that these men be told that they must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses.

Paul makes the point in Romans by first appealing to doing…

6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in **doing good **seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 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.

and then mentions Circumcision, the entry into the Old Covenant, how many times?

25For indeed **circumcision **is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your **circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised **man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his **uncircumcision **be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and **circumcision **are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is **circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision **is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Now if you can imagine some Protesant pastor preaching and using the idea of being “born again” over and over again or a Catholic Priest saying over and over again “baptized”…don’t you think it would get someone’s attention as to what was being said.

Paul from Romans 3-11 is addressing Judaizing Christians and in 7 makes the point comparing the Old Covenant to a dead spouse.

1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

  4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. **6But now we have been released from the Law,** having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The problem did not go away and Chrysostom had to contend with Judaizers inviting Christians to synagogues…It was the same problem developed over time by generations of the same sort of people…

Now lets get real. I grew up with Jews. I never had a Jew hand me a tract telling me that I was going to hell because I wasn’t a Jew. I hever had a Jew invite me to their house only with the notion that they really wanted to get me to synagogue and do an altar call. I hever had a Jew open the Old Testament and try to prove their beliefs. I never had a Jew tell me that the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon. Protestants on the other hand, well that is another story.

I had to make it a point to be invited to Jewish festivals, a barmitzvah, a sadir, and other things that Jews do. Times are different.

 

[CopticChristian]

Good morning, CopticChristian—

Hmm…I guess I didn’t write as clearly as I could have. I haven’t changed my view. In talking about distinguishing between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism in academic discussion, I wasn’t applying that to this particular discussion about Chrysostom’s sermons. I just meant that in a general way that, yes, there are times when a distinction is needed.

I thought, in various posts, that I wrote why I think Chrysostom not only spoke against Judaizers, but also against the character of the Jews as practioners of Judaism. In doing so, he goes further than simply being anti-Judaism. To give a parallel of why I make this distinction, I would venture to say that you are anti-Protestant, but I haven’t seen you make assumptions about the character of Protestants as practioners of Protestant beliefs.

And again, I think evidence points to the liklihood that Chrysostom’s “Judaizers” were not what Paul called Judaizers. I’ll try to talk about this later if I have time.

Abide,

I was introduced to the “Judaizing Christian” concept by Dr. Scott Hahn. I studied the Book of Romans with a study he provides on tape, read books, and other commentaries and had no idea that the letter to the Romans was addressed to Judaizing Christians until I was introduced to that idea. I now see that Paul indeed routinely addressed Judaizing Christians.

I sense that you have discomfort believing that Paul wrote regularly against the Judaizing Christian. I did not make this idea up. If you read the letters written by Paul this idea comes up again and again. I searched the Internet and Scott Hahn and myself are not the only ones that see it. Each of these websites points to the reality that there were Jewish Christians trying to get other Christians to join in the Old Covenant to be Christians. We see that today in the Messianic Jewish Protestant sects. There is nothing new under the sun.

paulproblem.faithweb.com/judiazers.htm

bible.org/seriespage/pauline-epistles

Theme and Purpose:
The Epistle to the Galatians was the battle cry of the Reformation because it stands out as Paul’s Manifesto of Justification by Faith. It has therefore been dubbed as “the charter of Christian Liberty.” Luther considered it in a peculiar sense his Epistle.51 Galatians stands as a powerful polemic **against the Judaizers **and their teachings of legalism. They taught, among other things, that a number of the ceremonial practices of the Old Testament were still binding on the church. Thus, the apostle writes to refute their false gospel of works and demonstrates the superiority of justification by faith and sanctification by the Holy Spirit versus by the **works of the Law. **

Paul had several obvious purposes in writing this letter to the Philippians: (1) He sought to express his love and gratitude for the gift they had sent him (1:5; 4:10-19); (2) to give a report about his own circumstances (1:12-26; 4:10-19); (3) to encourage the Philippians to stand firm in the face of persecution and rejoice regardless of circumstances (1:27-30; 4:4); (4) to exhort them to live in humility and unity (2:1-11; 4:2-5); (5) to commend Timothy and Epaphroditus to the Philippian church (2:19-30); and (6) to warn the Philippians against the legalistic Judaizers and the libertarian antinomians who had slipped in among them (ch. 3).

askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php

paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_views_jewish_christians.htm

If you want to believe that after the writings of the New Testament the Judaizers disappeared that is your perogative. I tend to believe that they had families, had children, taught their children and grew in communities to translate their thoughts and ideas in time until John Chrysosotom dealt with these communities too.

If you don’t believe that just look at Protestant thought translated from 1600 until now and the results of that transmission through generations…Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists are all products of that transformation of thought…we now have Evangelical Free thinkers, spawned from Lutheranism in Scandinavia, that have adopted Darbyism , dispensationalism, believing that Jews must be converted to bring Jesus back to earth…not much new in the world as thoughts transmit through time through people…

I agree that Judaizing Christians of Paul’s day were different than Judaizing Christians that Chrysostom met in the same way the Protestants of the 1600 are different than Protestants of today are and yet Judaizing Christians in Pauls day when compared to the Judaizing Christians of Chrysosotoms day had the same agenda…the same would be true for Protestants of the past and those seen today…

Yes they are different however the agenda has not changed.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

I was introduced to the “Judaizing Christian” concept by Dr. Scott Hahn. I studied the Book of Romans with a study he provides on tape, read books, and other commentaries and had no idea that the letter to the Romans was addressed to Judaizing Christians until I was introduced to that idea. I now see that Paul indeed routinely addressed Judaizing Christians.

I sense that you have discomfort believing that Paul wrote regularly against the Judaizing Christian.

CopticChristian—

Of course Paul wrote against Judaizing Christians. That’s a major reason for the letter to the Galatians. He talks about in other places, as well. No-one disputes that as far as I’m aware.

I’m short on time during this period, and I’m sorry I haven’t had time to discuss this. I’m sort of frustrated a little, though, because I wish you would wait for me to explain what I mean instead of running on into what you “sense” I wish to talk about. I recognize that my slowness in explaining or offering information isn’t ideal on a forum, and I apologize again. I’m really, really busy, though; and on the other hand I would like to talk about this, so I ask you to bear with me. I’ll try to get back back to this topic.

Meanwhile, you might find the “Judaizers” entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) online along with the same Wiki entry helpful so we can get on the same page about the different types of groups.

My tablet’s battery is running out and I need to get back to work anyway, but this evening I’ll try to briefly point out a few things in those entries for your attention and for discussion.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

I was introduced to the “Judaizing Christian” concept by Dr. Scott Hahn. I studied the Book of Romans with a study he provides on tape, read books, and other commentaries and had no idea that the letter to the Romans was addressed to Judaizing Christians until I was introduced to that idea. I now see that Paul indeed routinely addressed Judaizing Christians.

I sense that you have discomfort believing that Paul wrote regularly against the Judaizing Christian. I did not make this idea up. If you read the letters written by Paul this idea comes up again and again. I searched the Internet and Scott Hahn and myself are not the only ones that see it. Each of these websites points to the reality that there were Jewish Christians trying to get other Christians to join in the Old Covenant to be Christians. We see that today in the Messianic Jewish Protestant sects. There is nothing new under the sun.

paulproblem.faithweb.com/judiazers.htm

bible.org/seriespage/pauline-epistles

askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php

paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_views_jewish_christians.htm

If you want to believe that after the writings of the New Testament the Judaizers disappeared that is your perogative. I tend to believe that they had families, had children, taught their children and grew in communities to translate their thoughts and ideas in time until John Chrysosotom dealt with these communities too.

If you don’t believe that just look at Protestant thought translated from 1600 until now and the results of that transmission through generations…Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists are all products of that transformation of thought…we now have Evangelical Free thinkers, spawned from Lutheranism in Scandinavia, that have adopted Darbyism , dispensationalism, believing that Jews must be converted to bring Jesus back to earth…not much new in the world as thoughts transmit through time through people…

I agree that Judaizing Christians of Paul’s day were different than Judaizing Christians that Chrysostom met in the same way the Protestants of the 1600 are different than Protestants of today are and yet Judaizing Christians in Pauls day when compared to the Judaizing Christians of Chrysosotoms day had the same agenda…the same would be true for Protestants of the past and those seen today…

Yes they are different however the agenda has not changed.

CopticChristian----

Well, now I’m scratching my head over your choice of links. The first and last one are from some Gnostic guy. The third one is out there, too. What am I supposed to get from them?

Some time ago in several posts to me you brought up dispensationalism. I then explained that I’m not a dispensationalist, but neither do I believe in supersessionism. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Now here you again bring up dispensationalism in a post to me, and in a manner that seems to go off on a tangent away from the current topic of discussion. I don’t know if you forgot what I said–which is fine—or what your reason is. Please explain yourself as you have time.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian—

Of course Paul wrote against Judaizing Christians. That’s a major reason for the letter to the Galatians. He talks about in other places, as well. No-one disputes that as far as I’m aware.

I’m short on time during this period, and I’m sorry I haven’t had time to discuss this. I’m sort of frustrated a little, though, because I wish you would wait for me to explain what I mean instead of running on into what you “sense” I wish to talk about. I recognize that my slowness in explaining or offering information isn’t ideal on a forum, and I apologize again. I’m really, really busy, though; and on the other hand I would like to talk about this, so I ask you to bear with me. I’ll try to get back back to this topic.

Meanwhile, you might find the “Judaizers” entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) online along with the same Wiki entry helpful so we can get on the same page about the different types of groups.

My tablet’s battery is running out and I need to get back to work anyway, but this evening I’ll try to briefly point out a few things in those entries for your attention and for discussion.

Abide,

What do you want me to appreciate about the Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian----

Well, now I’m scratching my head over your choice of links. The first and last one are from some Gnostic guy. The third one is out there, too. What am I supposed to get from them?

Some time ago in several posts to me you brought up dispensationalism. I then explained that I’m not a dispensationalist, but neither do I believe in supersessionism. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Now here you again bring up dispensationalism in a post to me, and in a manner that seems to go off on a tangent away from the current topic of discussion. I don’t know if you forgot what I said–which is fine—or what your reason is. Please explain yourself as you have time.

Abide,

The links were not for content just the notion of “Judaizing Christians”. Concerning the Protestant thoughts of Dispensationalism and Superseeionism these are just continuums of thought that began in 1600.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

What do you want me to appreciate about the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Hi CopticChristian—I’ll get back to this.

Regarding your statement above that Supersessionism originated with Protestants…come on, now, that’s not true.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi CopticChristian—I’ll get back to this.

And I do apologize being an inconsistent discussion partner, CopticChristian. I was thinking I’d reply last night but family stuff keeps coming up.

 

[trdchubi]

Firstly, Orthodox and Greek are not the same. I am not Greek, but I am, by the grace of God, Orthodox. Secondly, his criticism of modern Greeks in no way undermines the self-understanding that Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now what does that have to do with the content of my response to your original post? You still have not offered any response to the fact that the much-maligned “replacement theory” is patristic, while modern protestant interpretations of who “Israel” refers to are not. What allows you, as a Catholic, to reject the patristic tradition in favor of modern Protestant theories?

Yes it is Patristic and Traditional, but will you by any means reject the prompting of the Holy Spirit for the bitterness of the Church Fathers and refuse to recognize the lessons of the Fig tree?

Have you reflected that these traditions from the early church fathers were used by evil leaders to start the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust?

Fr. Eusebius A. Stephanou understands that the Orthodox “fell into the bondage of religious legalism, dead forms and self-righteousness” against the Jews which was handed down by Church Fathers.Would you continue with these or listen to the Vatican Council 2 teaching that was reasoned, reflected and written in the context of Christian charity towards Jews?

These teachings are called Nostra Aetate in Latin or simply “In Our Time”.

 

[trdchubi]

I do not see any problem with the Patriarch’s letter to Arafat. In fact, the dearly departed Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, HH Pope Shenouda (may the Lord give him rest and receive his soul among the righteous) has said as much concerning the truth of the scriptures, which I recognize as being the absolute truth in this matter, as in all matters. If you or the Israelis or anyone else don’t like it, too bad. You’re wrong.

Why would Christians like the Coptic Pope Shenouda III give the impression that the Jews of today are still responsible for Jesus death?

The apology of the Catholic Church is appropriate and given out of Christian charity for the numerous afflictions inflicted against the Jews for centuries that directly and indirectly involved the church.

Did he missed that Christ death on the cross is seen as a positive thing for the founding of Christianity?

Did he overlooked that without Christ death, all Christians under the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, the Copts, Episcopilians, Lutherans, Presbytherians, the Protestants would simply ceased to exist.

Jesus said in the scriptures “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds”. John 12:24

Obviously the Pope was very much out of sync from realty that he forgot that his sin also brought Christ on the cross. He even forgot that the Romans played a major role on Christ death.

Why did he singled out the Jews? By Pope Shenouda’s standard, he should have blamed the present day Italians for committing deicide as well.

 

[trdchubi]

I’m pretty sure the Church is in solidarity with all persecuted Christians and that includes the Palestinians.

Vatican and Israeli relations are quite complicated and at times have been quite hostile. Trchubi reeks of an agenda clearly by portraying Palestinian Christians as unworthy adherents of the faith.

And quite frankly it saddens and disgusts me that a fellow Christian would be so blinded by there own political agenda (Yes the Israeli stance is purely political).

The Palestinians aren’t perfect and there’s groups of them that do horrible things to Israel. But for one poster (a Christian no matter) to go out of their way to say all Palestinians are bad Christians is terribly wrong and misguided.

For the record, I would state that I am on the side of the Arab Christians in the Holy land living in the so called “West Bank”. I pray that all of these Christians live under the care and protection of the Israeli Government. All Christian holy sites like Bethlehem are put under Israeli jurisdiction, for simple and pragmatic reason that the Christian heritage of Judea will be preserve and given the opportunity to flourish under Israeli democracy.

Obviously, the Arab Christians are captives of the palestinian muslims authorities, living as dhimmis. For the sake of lip service, these Arab Christians will not bad mouth their Palestinian muslim oppressors out of risk of Islamic backlash, which is likened to a hostage victim having a repeated episode of Stockholm syndrome. They would even deny the atrocities inflicted upon them but will openly criticize and solely blame Israel for their predicaments. I would recommend reading The Beleaguered Christians Of The Palestinian-Controlled Areas on this issue.

No I don’t have an agenda but would like to state that this Christians will be given more freedom under Israeli government. It just surprises me that they will go the extra mile for their Palestinian muslim oppressors to negate the claims of the Jews regarding what is written in the bible.

 

[trdchubi]

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.

Thank You