A word before I begin:
This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.
Jews, as a rule, do not comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith, and that includes the Christian faith; we have no right. We only claim to know how God chose to speak to US. If He chose to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say yea or nay. Only in the matter of literally worshiping idols as divine beings do we pronounce judgment, and that is rather rare in the modern world.
In my own, personal belief, Jesus was indeed sent by God to bring the light of Torah to the rest of the world. The Jews will always be "a small people"--the Book says so--and surely the rest of the was not meant to be left in the darkness of paganism. If not for Jesus, and perhaps even more for Paul, my own Celtic ancestors might have continued to paint themselves blue and worship trees.
The battle has never been between Christians and Jews, anyway. We are on the same side. On the other side are today's pagans--those who worship things; money, power, fame, gratification, status. May we both always remember that.
This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, accept Jesus as our Messiah. That some few have, and do, does not matter. Peace to them, but there are reasons why very few Jews who are familiar with and committed to their faith and tradition ever have, or ever will, believe in Jesus. This post is an effort to explain some of the most important.
To begin, then; Jesus, to put it plainly, simply did not perform the very specific actions that the Messiah was expected to do. There can be no "wiggle room" here; the tradition has been constant for thousands of years, and has not changed.
It is not that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill"; the Messiah was DEFINED by certain acts. To do them was to be the Messiah, and the meaning of the word "Messiah" was "the man who does these things."
Jesus did not do them. He was not the Messiah. There is no "therefore," because the phrases are synonymous.
Further, Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah; and he took on a role that no Jew, at any time from Abraham forward, had ever contemplated that any man, Messiah or no, would ever be called upon to fulfill. There was no need for it.
Jesus fulfilled one and only one attribute of the Messiah; he was of the tribe of Judah. Much is made of this in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, with elaborate genealogies given for Mary, and, oddly, for Joseph.
Other than that, St.
Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes: (1) The Messiah was to be a military, or at least a political, leader, an actual, rightful King. (2) He would restore the independence of Israel and free it from foreign (at the time, Roman) rule. (3) Most importantly, he would institute a reign of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth.
It seems rather clear that none of these occurred; most glaringly the last, which was and has always been the most important sign and task of the Messiah (The short answer, for many Jews, to the question "Why don't you believe in Jesus?" is "Oy! Look around!").
The Messiah was the coming King who would restore the line of David, free Israel, and being peace to the world; he would institute the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it would be named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were one.
At the end of Jesus's life, these things had not happened. The Messiah had not come.
As if all that wasn't enough, Jesus, or his followers, made claims for him that were alien to Judaism, and in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view. For starters, that Jesus was God incarnate.
It would be hard to think of an idea more repugnant to Jews, then or now. The oldest and most fundamental and nonnegotiable tenet of Judaism is that God is One, which means a good deal more than "one God." Among other things, it means that God is unique and indivisible, and shares His Essence and Being with no one and nothing.
It would be easier for Jews to begin chowing down on ham-and-Swiss sandwiches than to accept the claim that a man could be, in any sense, God. The Messiah was never conceived to be anything other than an ordinary mortal man; anointed by God, to be sure, but no more a God himself than King David was. There is no hint of such a thing in any Jewish tradition; it is about as likely as the High Priest carving a stone idol and placing it in the Holy of Holies. It was, and remains, quite literally unthinkable.
Second, Jesus was said to be the literal son of God. This was way beyond bizarre. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and Sinai, could or would come down to earth and father a human child is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one--consider Zeus had Hercules--and it may be no coincidence that Paul was speaking to Greeks, not Jews, when he formulated it. There has never been anything within a light-year of that idea anywhere in all the enormous tradition and long history of the Jewish people. It is, again, unthinkable:
Third, Jesus claimed the power and authority to forgive sins.
All sins.
Now this is difficult, because this is not widely known: Jews do not believe that God Himself has that power. God can forgive sins against Himself--ritual offenses, broken vows, and so on--but no more; a sin against another human must be forgiven by that person, or not at all. (This is why there can be no forgiveness for murder. The only one with the power to forgive is dead. This is also why the Jews of today cannot "forgive" the Holocaust. You must ask the six million for that forgiveness; we have no right to give it.)
By claiming this power, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God, but in fact greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes when they heard him speak.
And again, as if all this were not enough--it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in it.
This seems simple; but for Jews, there are no less than six separate problems here.
First, the idea that people need to be saved from their sins. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," or that all people are born sinful. We believe that everyone has an impulse to do good, and an impulse to do evil, and that these remain with us all our lives; our job is to follow the first and resist the second to the best of our ability.
Second, St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught, nor do we believe, that we are obligated to fulfill "the whole of the Law" or face eternal damnation. We believe that, since God made us, He knows our imperfection and our weakness, and does not demand that we be perfect and without fault or flaw. That would be the act of an unjust God, and we do not believe that God is unjust.
Third, Jews do not believe that any human can bear the sins of another. That principle is underlined in the Torah over and over again. Each man bears his own sins, and that cannot be changed.
Fourth, we do not believe that a "sacrifice" is necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins, whether animal or human (and the idea of a human sacrifice is so far from any Jewish belief or practice that it is barely comprehensible that anyone would even propose it as a possibility). It is true that animal sacrifices were performed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, but it is clear throughout the Torah and the Prophets that the sacrifice itself was meaningless without the repentance and devotion of the individual human heart.
Fifth, in Judaism, "belief" accomplishes precisely nothing by itself. There is no Creed in Judaism, no specified set of acceptable beliefs. What one "believes" is all but insignificant next to what one does, and no amount of "belief" cancels or ameliorates the results of one's actions. Believing the proper "doctrines" in Judaism is utterly irrelevant to anything at all.
Put simply: if I am in need, what do I care what you "believe"? Will you help me, or not? Nothing else matters.
Sixth, Jews are not even certain that there is a Heaven at all. Judaism has rather little concern with the afterlife; it isn't mentioned in the Torah, and belief in it seems to have been entirely absent from its teachings in the early years of our religion. Even those Jews who do believe in Heaven spend little time or energy thinking and talking about it. The point of the Jewish religion is THIS life. The next, we leave to God.
As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, our views of the nature and structure of the relationship between God and man, the nature and importance of sin and the means of its forgiveness, the significance of the afterlife, and many other matters, are so different that they really do constitute entirely separate religions. That one was derived from the other, and that we share a large body of Scripture, no longer matters. We stand beside each other as brothers; but we have long since taken separate paths. We ought to respect one another and work together where our ideals and ethics converge--which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone.
One more note: It is wholly illegitimate and improper for a follower of any faith to attempt to dictate to a follower of another what his beliefs OUGHT to be, then castigate him because they do not follow his prescription. No one has any warrant to point out passages of "prophecy" in our own Scriptures that we do not, and have never, read as such, and overrule the traditions and beliefs that we have held for more than three thousand years--and tell us what we ought to think and believe. No one has that right.
We have no warrant to deny that Jesus is your Savior, or to deny that, for you, any belief you may hold about him is true. That is between you and God, and is none of our business.
But in the same way, it is not your right to insist that we abandon our own beliefs and convictions in favor of an understanding of our own Scriptures that we have never held.
Thank you for reading. May we all work together for the good of the Kingdom of God and forgive each other our disagreements.
I'll close with a saying from the Talmud. When the sages of old disagreed and could find no way to reconcile their differences, they would often allow both rulings to stand as equally acceptable options in Jewish law. When asked how this was possible, it was said that "When Elijah comes, he will explain which of us was right--or why we both were."
Peace to all.
Charles
Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah
Moderator: Moderators
-
cnorman18
--
Post #61To Smersh:
The High Council of Elders has been informed of your activities on this forum.
If it is determined that your interfering with our plans for turning the world over to our Master is too much of a problem, you may receive some callers. Our friends in the Shin Bet and the Mossad are very skilled in such matters, and are always eager to help.
Of course, anyone else reading this post will assume that I am only playing with you, so I can speak openly like this without fear of any consequences. We have laid our plans carefully and prepared the ground very well.
Sleep soundly, "Smersh"--of course, we already know your real name and where you live.
(Call me cruel.)
The High Council of Elders has been informed of your activities on this forum.
If it is determined that your interfering with our plans for turning the world over to our Master is too much of a problem, you may receive some callers. Our friends in the Shin Bet and the Mossad are very skilled in such matters, and are always eager to help.
Of course, anyone else reading this post will assume that I am only playing with you, so I can speak openly like this without fear of any consequences. We have laid our plans carefully and prepared the ground very well.
Sleep soundly, "Smersh"--of course, we already know your real name and where you live.
(Call me cruel.)
Post #63
Men are unable to fake signs that a person had pleased God. There are thousands of witnesses who confirm that many Saints were able to see human soul, that is they knew all about person they meet for the first time.bernee51
God has yet to announce any saints. The only one's I know of have been pronounced by men.
If you are so impartial, why do you take sides? How is one deluded belief in a god myth, is more acceptable to you?If anything I am militant against intolerance and bigotry - regardless of the source.
I don't play favorites with any of the monotheisms...they are all based in a deluded belief in a god myth. Each, in their own way, have caused untold misery in the history of mankind. The sooner we are rid of them - and their god - the better.
I believe in matters of Theology The Bible is the most useful source of reference.The bible is not evidence of anything but mankind's insecurity in the face of the trials of existence. It is but one of a myriad of so-called 'sacred' scriptures.
To start with, the intelligent don't assume they are more intelligent than others. In every branch of science there are authorities you can not argue with. Such authorities also exist in The Teaching of Christianity. Your knowledge and expertise in this subject is far too limited.An appeal to authority...big deal.
The intelligent investigate their belief systems and those that came before. The intelligent see the evolution of such systems along with the god beliefs that precipitate them.
You wouldn't engage in debate in say mathematics with a Noble Prize winner, what makes you think you can consider yourself smarted than champions in their field of knowledge?
All right let me start with quoting from The Gospel:McCulloch
You have a lot to learn about critical thought. Nothing is true and right because those people you respect and admire believe it to be right. Conversely, nothing is false simply because those people you have contempt for and disrespect are against it.
Perhaps I should give you another chance to answer the question. How is it that you know that the Church is right? This time please try to provide something approximating rational evidence.
Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
You see there is the key. It didn't perish. It survived for two thousands years under any government often very hostile. It preserved the Teaching for 2000 years. Even large scale infiltration by hostile forces could not destroy it.
Knowing a little bit about how easy human made organizations are destroyed or filled with completely alien substance, one cannot arrive to another conclusion but that, that The Church is Divine organization and therefore its Teaching is the Absolute Truth.
It would be wise for you to PM this type of personal threats, for it completely discredits you and your argument.cnorman18
: --
To Smersh:
The High Council of Elders has been informed of your activities on this forum.
If it is determined that your interfering with our plans for turning the world over to our Master is too much of a problem, you may receive some callers. Our friends in the Shin Bet and the Mossad are very skilled in such matters, and are always eager to help.
Of course, anyone else reading this post will assume that I am only playing with you, so I can speak openly like this without fear of any consequences. We have laid our plans carefully and prepared the ground very well.
Sleep soundly, "Smersh"--of course, we already know your real name and where you live.
(Call me cruel.)
-
cnorman18
--
Post #64So he really does believe in the Conspiracy, and that he's actually important.It would be wise for you to PM this type of personal threats, for it completely discredits you and your argument.
We have now established that Smersh is not only a vicious bigot, but a fool.
Note to mods; I shall comment as I choose. I shall complain about this drooling antisemite
SOB on the Forum, and I shall mock his conspiracy theories all I want. If you think that calling this vicious bigot and fool by his proper name is worse than his accusing me and my people of ritual murder and cannibalism, you can take your forum and put it elsewhere. Do you serve good here, or evil? It isn't rocket science to figure out who is wrong.
Why hasn't this Nazi been barred?
As I PMed you, there was a time not so long ago when Christians all over Europe turned a blind eye to this sort of evil, and that inaction had consequences. Are you, too, going to stand by and do nothing? Will you allow blatant, vicious lies and Jew-baiting go unchecked here?
This is where it started in the 1930s. I shall NOT remain silent. My people did that once before, and we have a saying that is rather well known: "NEVER AGAIN!"
I shall not stop complaining publicly till something is done.
Which one of us will you silence?
Make your choice.
Re: --
Post #65Jesus said to be good, be holy BECAUSE GOD IS GOOD; HE IS HOLY. I agree: we should serve God BECAUSE HE IS GOD deserving of all our love. Of course, there is a heaven, and Jesus speaks of a "reward in heaven" (Mt 5:12) and urges us to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven."cnorman18 wrote:
Maybe--just maybe--religious faith should be about more than whether or not one goes to Heaven. Even when I was a Christian, I thought that an oddly selfish and self-centered kind of faith. I have actually had Christians tell me (this was when I was a minister) that if there were no Heaven, there would be no reason to be good. I find that pathetic. If we need to be promised a heavenly lollipop to be good, and a hellish spanking not to be bad, just how good are we being?
Jews believe we should be good BECAUSE IT IS GOOD. We should serve God BECAUSE HE IS GOD. If there is a Heaven, well, that would be wonderful; but we plan to be good and serve God anyway.
But what is heaven to you? From your last two statements above, it seems to me you would love to gain that reward in heaven. Please contemplate Pope John Paul II's treatise on Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. Heaven is the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God. Heaven is enjoying Fullness of Communion with God, which should be the goal of human life. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "this perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed is called "heaven'. Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfilment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness" (n.1024).
The greatest reward is possessing God. He is what the admiration of Heaven is all about. The greatest punishment is loss of God. That is Hell. Jesus calls us to love and be holy so that we can be in communion with God. If you chose to be evil and wicked, then of course you cannot be with God. Fire and ice do not go together. Either Fire burns or ice melts.
If a soul repents and reject evil in his last moment of death, and call on the name of the Lord Jesus even at this very last moment, then YES, he would gain for himself Jesus' promise of salvation which Jesus has won for him by the Shedding of the Blood. Of course, he would have to be purified of all the sins he committed before he can rest in the presence of the Most Holy God. That place is call purgatory where Hitler would do some time in purification for his sins. Meanwhile, he'll thirst so much to be able to receive God in fullness of communion. All of heavens would rejoice at the repentance of this one lost soul, whom Jesus had died for. All the "Treasures" of the heaven awaits him..... wrote:If Hitler had claimed to believe in Jesus on his deathbed, would he be cavorting in Heaven now?
Are you jealous that he who's called into the Vineyard the last hour of the day receive the same Wage as you who was called the first hour of the day? Such is God's Justice and Mercy. Would you be mad that Hitler received salvation for repenting at that last minute? Is that jealousy we detect? Is that hate? Can good people get over their hate and move on to forgiveness and rejoice with all of heavens that that one lost soul finally repents and turn back to God?
God alone sees their hearts and judge whether they walk upright in their life, whether they reject evil and embrace the attributes of Justice, Love, Charity, Mercy, Holiness in their life and do all the Jesus says for them to be and to do. Jesus alone decides who would receive the gift of salvation He has purchased for us....not you and not I. However, if they haven't put their trust in His Name as their Savior on this earth, and have not receive purification....they too will have to be purified.... wrote:And are all the pious, faithful and observant Jewish families that he murdered now burning in Hell? Straight answers, please. Show me what kind of God you believe in. Say what you believe--unless you're ashamed of it, of course.
It is better to go through purification on this earth...then to wait to go through Purgatory where the soul now "sees" with all his being God whom he desires but cannot yet receive in fullness of communion. It is better to accept Jesus as your Savior now and move onto sanctification here on earth, and receive the Gift He promise, receiving the Holy Spirit, God the The Sanctifier here on earth itself... This is experiencing Heaven on earth.
That's right. The devils know God, had seen Him, but because of pride reject Him. Notice they reject God not because they haven't seen Him or don't known of Him like us...and they reject God not just for a moment of time and turn back to God...for surely God forgives them if they should turn back....No, the devils reject God for all of eternity because of pride of always wanting to take God's place in heaven. The created creature wanting to take the place of the Creator, the God Most High...imagine that unjust insolence done to God.... wrote:I was formerly a Methodist. John Wesley, the founder of that denomination, once asked a provocative question: "What good is correct doctrine? The devils in Hell know all the right doctrine, and for all that, they be but devils."
Unlike the devil, we don't know of God fully...and in our limited human nature, and weakness of the flesh...we always have these barriers and deceptions: deceptive ideas, deceptive worldly knowledge, and false Messiahs against us. Our enemies are not of this world and we cannot even see them. But, God's gives us revelation of His Truth, His plan of destiny for us. He gives us His Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus to testify about Heaven not just with His spoken words but with His marvelous deeds, with His Blood, with His Death, and with His Resurrection. He gives reasoning and the ability to understand the Truth presented...and we have free will. A free will which devils do not know nor can control.
Take the Virgin Mary's motherly advice to us: "Do everything as He says..." Do everything as Jesus says to us....have you done all that Jesus said for you to do or to be? When you were a Methodist, did you do what John Wesley said or what Jesus said? Were you following Jesus or were you following John Wesley or whoever that you hang around with? If they somehow cause you to suffer, did you leave Jesus on account of that?... wrote:You asked me for a list; I'll ask you for one. What specific correct thoughts or understandings--beliefs, if you like--must one hold or else go to Hell? What does God insist that we THINK? And why does that matter more than what we actually DO?
God search our heart and minds, and looks at our intentions for our hearts, mind, intentions are part of our BEING. Are you BEING good? God also look at our DOING. Have you done Good? If the intentions are good, but the means of action is evil...that is still evil to God. If the intentions are evil, but the means of action are good...that is still evil. If the intentions are good, and the means of action are good...that is Good.
-
cnorman18
--
Post #66To TMMaria:
I obviously do not wholly agree with everything you say, but I believe that your beliefs and your faith are good and honorable. Jews, as I have said, do not as a rule either affirm or deny the beliefs of others; but I would be proud to claim you as a sister, and affirm that we are both, in our own ways, doing our best to serve God.
Whether or not there is a Heaven, a Hell, or a Purgatory, I do not profess to know. We agree on the most important point: that God is the sole Judge.
As for Hitler, the point was of course rhetorical; there is no evidence that he repented of anything before he committed suicide. In any case, we both believe, do we not, that God's justice and His mercy are both perfect; and I am content to leave the fate of that evil man--and of his victims--in His hands. On that, I suspect we agree as well.
Thank you for your deeply Christian and deeply compassionate post.
Peace.
Charles
I obviously do not wholly agree with everything you say, but I believe that your beliefs and your faith are good and honorable. Jews, as I have said, do not as a rule either affirm or deny the beliefs of others; but I would be proud to claim you as a sister, and affirm that we are both, in our own ways, doing our best to serve God.
Whether or not there is a Heaven, a Hell, or a Purgatory, I do not profess to know. We agree on the most important point: that God is the sole Judge.
As for Hitler, the point was of course rhetorical; there is no evidence that he repented of anything before he committed suicide. In any case, we both believe, do we not, that God's justice and His mercy are both perfect; and I am content to leave the fate of that evil man--and of his victims--in His hands. On that, I suspect we agree as well.
Thank you for your deeply Christian and deeply compassionate post.
Peace.
Charles
-
cnorman18
--
Post #67In the interest of fairness and truth, I'd like to make it clear to everyone that Smersh does not speak for all Orthodox Christians.
From "Antisemitism and Orthodoxy," by Stephen Methodius Hayes
(This article is from an Orthodox website. Following are excerpts relevant to the present debate.)
http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm
"Those who say that Christianity was fundamentally antisemitic point to the Gospel according to St John, where Jesus debates not so much with the Pharisees as with "the Jews", and the Jews are made to seem the villain of the piece. St John even has Jesus say that the Jews were children of the devil (John 8:44), and you can't get much more antisemitic than that! If Jews are children of the devil, then they must be fair game, and the gas chambers of Auschwicz are too good for them.
"Another verse used to support the thesis that Christianity was antisemitic from the beginning is Matthew 27:27, when the crowd demand the death of Jesus. When Pilate hesitates, the crowd shout that they will accept responsibility: "His blood be on us and on our children." This verse, the critics say, was intended to justify Christians in hating Jews as "Christ-killers", and to perpetuate this hatred for all generations.
"Two questions arise from this:
"1. Do these verses really indicate "antisemitism" on the part of the NT writers?
"2. Can they legitimately be used by Christians to justify antisemitism?
"I believe that the answer to both questions is "No".
"What is antisemitism?
"Antisemitism, the hatred of Jews as a race is a phenomenon of the 19th century. Antisemitism was part of a wider movement of racism that intensified towards the end of the 19th century, and led to several attempts at genocide in the 20th century. To read it back into the first century, or even the 4th century, is anachronistic. It is bad history.
"Is the "antisemitic" interpretation valid?
"Apart from the question of anachronism, there is also the question of a faulty reading of the New Testament text. Who are the "Jews" that are referred to in the gospels? Jesus was a Jew by religion, as were most of his disciples. But the Greek word that is translated into English as "Jews" is actually "Ioudei", and could just as easily (and in many contexts more accurately) be translated as "Judaeans". Jesus and his disciples were Jews, but not Judaeans. They were not normally resident in Judaea, but in Galilee, which was under a different political authority, and they spoke with a different accent (Mt 26:73). When Jesus debated with the Judaean Pharisees (Jn 8), they said he was a Samaritan (Jn 8:48). Samaritans were regarded as heretics. The woman of Samaria recognised Jesus as a Jew (Jn 4:9) and Jesus does not dispute this. Surely if John were antisemitic, and intending to promote antisemitism, he would have suppressed such evidence? The Samaritan woman also recognises the theological differences (Jn 4:20). By calling Jesus a "Samaritan", therefore, the Judaean Pharisees imply that he is a heretic, and perhaps his northern accent sounds to them as though it could just as easily be Samaritan as Galilean (Samaria was geographically between Judaea and Galilee, and Jesus had passed through it on his way to Judaea).
"I believe that those who maintain that the Gospel according to St John is "antisemitic" have failed to distinguish between Jews and Judaeans, and that by assuming that "Ioudei" meant "Jews" in every case, they have read antisemitism into the text where none exists.
"I do not dispute that some of these passages of scripture have later been used by Christians, including some Orthodox Christians, to justify antisemitism, but I believe that those who have done so were mistaken, and were misinterpreting the text. So I believe that using the text to justify antisemitism is twisting it, whether it is done by those promoting antisemitism, or by those promoting antiChristianity by claiming that Christianity is inherently antisemitic.
"What about the "antisemitic" writings of St John Chrysostom?
"In the fourth century St John Chrysostom wrote a polemical work "against the Jews". He was trained in the schools of classical rhetoric and he pulled no punches. His language was harsh, intemperate and at times crude and insulting. It would certainly not pass the standards of polite or scholarly discourse today.
"Many of those who cite St John Chrysostom as a source of antisemitism, however, have not read this work or any other by him. They know nothing of the setting, and many have seen nothing but a few of the nastier insults quoted out of context. I sometimes get the feeling, reading such critiques (which are several generations removed from the scholarly originals, so that tentative suggestions made by scholarly researchers have become indisputable facts in the minds of those looking for something to bash Christianity with) that somewhere there is a collection of Patristical excerpts, containing all the things that the Church Fathers have said against women, or Jews, or other groups, all collected in one convenient place for reference by modern polemicists, who use this as a source to avoid having to read the original texts in their proper context.
"St John Chrysostom was not really writing against Jews, but against Judaising Christians. There were Christians who would attend Jewish services and prayer meetings, and adopt Jewish customs, and say how superior they were to Christian ones. He rejects their approach, and compares Jewish theology and practice with Christian, trying to show the superiority of Christian beliefs and practices, and their incompatibility with each other.
"It is quite clear that he thinks Christianity is superior to Judaism, and that Christians should therefore not attend Jewish services and prayer meetings or adopt Jewish customs. But is this "antisemitic", or does it justify antisemitism? Again, I would say it is not and it does not. Theological disagreement is not antisemitism, even when expressed in very rude language. And theological differences do not justify either pogroms or genocide....
"When we look at St John Chrysostom's writing, we should also look at the setting. Where was he writing from, and what were things like in those days?....
"To take a text written in such a setting, and use it to justify hatred of Jews today, is the worst kind of demagoguery.
"Where do we go from here?
"So what should be the attitude of Orthodox Christians to Jews today?
"I believe that we will continue to have deep theological differences with Jews. We believe that the Messiah has come; Jews do not. We believe that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but God incarnate. Jews do not. As long as there are Jews and Christians in the world, we will continue to disagree over such things. The differences won't go away....
"Yet, despite these differences, there are many ways in which Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians share a common heritage and even similar outlooks on life that can allow us to respect one another, even if we do not agree on theology.
"Can we regard Jews as "Christ-killers" and on that ground justify hating, oppressing or persecuting them? I believe that if Orthodox Christians do such a thing, that is a sin that we must confess and forsake. When it comes to the death of Christ, the only guilt that we need to consider is our own. We pray every day in Lent, "Grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother". That is the spirit of true Orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from it than antisemitism.
"From Palm Sunday to Pentecost we read in the scriptures about the Jerusalem mob. They were Judaeans and Jews from other nations (Ioudei). On Palm Sunday, we are told, they shouted "Hosanna!" as Jesus rode into Jerusalem. A few days later, they were shouting "Crucify him!" and "His blood be on us and on our children". And Jesus, we are told, said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." If we, as Christians, refuse to forgive those whom God has forgiven, we deny Christ, and we place ourselves among the crowd who called for his death, and put ourselves out of the range of God's forgiveness by denying it to others. On the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later, we are told that St Peter spoke to the same Jerusalem mob, who had clearly witnessed the events of Palm Sunday and Great Friday. He said, "God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Ac 2:36). And the crowd asked "What shall we do?" And St Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, every one of you for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children.
To claim, as some have done, that the words of the curse "His blood be on us and our children" justify Christians in hating Jews, supposing them to be descendants of people who actually shouted that, is in fact to crucify Christ afresh. If Christ said "Father forgive them" who are we to refuse to forgive them or their supposed descendants, for a wrong done not to us, but to him? The crowd is us. When we hear those events from Palm Sunday to Pentecost, we are the ones who shout "Hosanna" one day, and crucify him the next. Ours is the avarice of Judas. Lord, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother. Lord, have mercy."
From "Antisemitism and Orthodoxy," by Stephen Methodius Hayes
(This article is from an Orthodox website. Following are excerpts relevant to the present debate.)
http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm
"Those who say that Christianity was fundamentally antisemitic point to the Gospel according to St John, where Jesus debates not so much with the Pharisees as with "the Jews", and the Jews are made to seem the villain of the piece. St John even has Jesus say that the Jews were children of the devil (John 8:44), and you can't get much more antisemitic than that! If Jews are children of the devil, then they must be fair game, and the gas chambers of Auschwicz are too good for them.
"Another verse used to support the thesis that Christianity was antisemitic from the beginning is Matthew 27:27, when the crowd demand the death of Jesus. When Pilate hesitates, the crowd shout that they will accept responsibility: "His blood be on us and on our children." This verse, the critics say, was intended to justify Christians in hating Jews as "Christ-killers", and to perpetuate this hatred for all generations.
"Two questions arise from this:
"1. Do these verses really indicate "antisemitism" on the part of the NT writers?
"2. Can they legitimately be used by Christians to justify antisemitism?
"I believe that the answer to both questions is "No".
"What is antisemitism?
"Antisemitism, the hatred of Jews as a race is a phenomenon of the 19th century. Antisemitism was part of a wider movement of racism that intensified towards the end of the 19th century, and led to several attempts at genocide in the 20th century. To read it back into the first century, or even the 4th century, is anachronistic. It is bad history.
"Is the "antisemitic" interpretation valid?
"Apart from the question of anachronism, there is also the question of a faulty reading of the New Testament text. Who are the "Jews" that are referred to in the gospels? Jesus was a Jew by religion, as were most of his disciples. But the Greek word that is translated into English as "Jews" is actually "Ioudei", and could just as easily (and in many contexts more accurately) be translated as "Judaeans". Jesus and his disciples were Jews, but not Judaeans. They were not normally resident in Judaea, but in Galilee, which was under a different political authority, and they spoke with a different accent (Mt 26:73). When Jesus debated with the Judaean Pharisees (Jn 8), they said he was a Samaritan (Jn 8:48). Samaritans were regarded as heretics. The woman of Samaria recognised Jesus as a Jew (Jn 4:9) and Jesus does not dispute this. Surely if John were antisemitic, and intending to promote antisemitism, he would have suppressed such evidence? The Samaritan woman also recognises the theological differences (Jn 4:20). By calling Jesus a "Samaritan", therefore, the Judaean Pharisees imply that he is a heretic, and perhaps his northern accent sounds to them as though it could just as easily be Samaritan as Galilean (Samaria was geographically between Judaea and Galilee, and Jesus had passed through it on his way to Judaea).
"I believe that those who maintain that the Gospel according to St John is "antisemitic" have failed to distinguish between Jews and Judaeans, and that by assuming that "Ioudei" meant "Jews" in every case, they have read antisemitism into the text where none exists.
"I do not dispute that some of these passages of scripture have later been used by Christians, including some Orthodox Christians, to justify antisemitism, but I believe that those who have done so were mistaken, and were misinterpreting the text. So I believe that using the text to justify antisemitism is twisting it, whether it is done by those promoting antisemitism, or by those promoting antiChristianity by claiming that Christianity is inherently antisemitic.
"What about the "antisemitic" writings of St John Chrysostom?
"In the fourth century St John Chrysostom wrote a polemical work "against the Jews". He was trained in the schools of classical rhetoric and he pulled no punches. His language was harsh, intemperate and at times crude and insulting. It would certainly not pass the standards of polite or scholarly discourse today.
"Many of those who cite St John Chrysostom as a source of antisemitism, however, have not read this work or any other by him. They know nothing of the setting, and many have seen nothing but a few of the nastier insults quoted out of context. I sometimes get the feeling, reading such critiques (which are several generations removed from the scholarly originals, so that tentative suggestions made by scholarly researchers have become indisputable facts in the minds of those looking for something to bash Christianity with) that somewhere there is a collection of Patristical excerpts, containing all the things that the Church Fathers have said against women, or Jews, or other groups, all collected in one convenient place for reference by modern polemicists, who use this as a source to avoid having to read the original texts in their proper context.
"St John Chrysostom was not really writing against Jews, but against Judaising Christians. There were Christians who would attend Jewish services and prayer meetings, and adopt Jewish customs, and say how superior they were to Christian ones. He rejects their approach, and compares Jewish theology and practice with Christian, trying to show the superiority of Christian beliefs and practices, and their incompatibility with each other.
"It is quite clear that he thinks Christianity is superior to Judaism, and that Christians should therefore not attend Jewish services and prayer meetings or adopt Jewish customs. But is this "antisemitic", or does it justify antisemitism? Again, I would say it is not and it does not. Theological disagreement is not antisemitism, even when expressed in very rude language. And theological differences do not justify either pogroms or genocide....
"When we look at St John Chrysostom's writing, we should also look at the setting. Where was he writing from, and what were things like in those days?....
"To take a text written in such a setting, and use it to justify hatred of Jews today, is the worst kind of demagoguery.
"Where do we go from here?
"So what should be the attitude of Orthodox Christians to Jews today?
"I believe that we will continue to have deep theological differences with Jews. We believe that the Messiah has come; Jews do not. We believe that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but God incarnate. Jews do not. As long as there are Jews and Christians in the world, we will continue to disagree over such things. The differences won't go away....
"Yet, despite these differences, there are many ways in which Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians share a common heritage and even similar outlooks on life that can allow us to respect one another, even if we do not agree on theology.
"Can we regard Jews as "Christ-killers" and on that ground justify hating, oppressing or persecuting them? I believe that if Orthodox Christians do such a thing, that is a sin that we must confess and forsake. When it comes to the death of Christ, the only guilt that we need to consider is our own. We pray every day in Lent, "Grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother". That is the spirit of true Orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from it than antisemitism.
"From Palm Sunday to Pentecost we read in the scriptures about the Jerusalem mob. They were Judaeans and Jews from other nations (Ioudei). On Palm Sunday, we are told, they shouted "Hosanna!" as Jesus rode into Jerusalem. A few days later, they were shouting "Crucify him!" and "His blood be on us and on our children". And Jesus, we are told, said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." If we, as Christians, refuse to forgive those whom God has forgiven, we deny Christ, and we place ourselves among the crowd who called for his death, and put ourselves out of the range of God's forgiveness by denying it to others. On the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later, we are told that St Peter spoke to the same Jerusalem mob, who had clearly witnessed the events of Palm Sunday and Great Friday. He said, "God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Ac 2:36). And the crowd asked "What shall we do?" And St Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, every one of you for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children.
To claim, as some have done, that the words of the curse "His blood be on us and our children" justify Christians in hating Jews, supposing them to be descendants of people who actually shouted that, is in fact to crucify Christ afresh. If Christ said "Father forgive them" who are we to refuse to forgive them or their supposed descendants, for a wrong done not to us, but to him? The crowd is us. When we hear those events from Palm Sunday to Pentecost, we are the ones who shout "Hosanna" one day, and crucify him the next. Ours is the avarice of Judas. Lord, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother. Lord, have mercy."
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #68
It all depends on what you mean by Messiah, certainly the Gentiles had a different idea then the Jewish believers and it seems they were presented with a number of gospels early on.
The gospels and the NT are a good example of the diversity of traditions and their development.
The human Jesus as the divine Christ seems radical different then the Jewish conception an anointed martyr or even king. If the purpose of God's chosen people was to bring himself into the world as a human then it seems he would have been better off picking Pagans as his background culture rather then set them up for rejection. Every indication is that the divinity of Jesus developed over time even if we can find passages that indicate the divine king which included Davidic kings. Cyrus was God's anointed where Pharaohs and kings had many of the same titles we find in Isaiah.
Roman leader also made claims and you can see where a competing Jesus would take on the same titles in a pagan world. Granted there were traditions within second temple Judaism where Enoch or the Second Adam or even the Son of Man took on divine qualities and titles but it is taken they were not the same as being God but acted as his representative. Even the "Messenger of the Lord" or "Angel of the Lord" would hardly make sense as why would God be his own messenger?
There is every reason to believe the gospel writers were not independent and there was a development or growth of Christology as well as liberal use of the LXX to fill in the stories. Even the fictional speeches of Acts seem borrowed. Peter give a speech lifted right from Ezekiel where he says he never ate anything unclean which seems to be Pauline and not something Jesus taught as indicated in the gospels. You would think Paul would have used the teaching of Jesus had he expressed such notions and his complaints concerning the Jerusalem "pillars" would have been unnecessary. But Peter and others, by Paul's own account, withdrew from him as he curses and ridicules them.
But I must agree with Goat I principle as the idea of a Messiah is very different then the idea of a human being/God and the two should not be equated. An anointed could be a priest as it is in the 2nd century BCE book of Daniel.
The gospels and the NT are a good example of the diversity of traditions and their development.
The human Jesus as the divine Christ seems radical different then the Jewish conception an anointed martyr or even king. If the purpose of God's chosen people was to bring himself into the world as a human then it seems he would have been better off picking Pagans as his background culture rather then set them up for rejection. Every indication is that the divinity of Jesus developed over time even if we can find passages that indicate the divine king which included Davidic kings. Cyrus was God's anointed where Pharaohs and kings had many of the same titles we find in Isaiah.
Roman leader also made claims and you can see where a competing Jesus would take on the same titles in a pagan world. Granted there were traditions within second temple Judaism where Enoch or the Second Adam or even the Son of Man took on divine qualities and titles but it is taken they were not the same as being God but acted as his representative. Even the "Messenger of the Lord" or "Angel of the Lord" would hardly make sense as why would God be his own messenger?
There is every reason to believe the gospel writers were not independent and there was a development or growth of Christology as well as liberal use of the LXX to fill in the stories. Even the fictional speeches of Acts seem borrowed. Peter give a speech lifted right from Ezekiel where he says he never ate anything unclean which seems to be Pauline and not something Jesus taught as indicated in the gospels. You would think Paul would have used the teaching of Jesus had he expressed such notions and his complaints concerning the Jerusalem "pillars" would have been unnecessary. But Peter and others, by Paul's own account, withdrew from him as he curses and ridicules them.
I don't often get the chance to disagree with Goat and in this case it is largely the meaning of Messiah that is at odds. The prophets wrote of a king from the line of David after the return which never came to to be given there was never the reestablishment of the kingship. It vanished with the prophets.goat wrote: Well, there is no such thing as a messanic Jew. If you are 'messanic' you aren't Jewish.
But I must agree with Goat I principle as the idea of a Messiah is very different then the idea of a human being/God and the two should not be equated. An anointed could be a priest as it is in the 2nd century BCE book of Daniel.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #69
Maybe if I clarify what my definition of a 'messianic' is. That is a person who follows the Jewish verbiage, and holidays, but uses the New Testament, and proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah, and Son of God, and God.Cathar1950 wrote:It all depends on what you mean by Messiah, certainly the Gentiles had a different idea then the Jewish believers and it seems they were presented with a number of gospels early on.
The gospels and the NT are a good example of the diversity of traditions and their development.
The human Jesus as the divine Christ seems radical different then the Jewish conception an anointed martyr or even king. If the purpose of God's chosen people was to bring himself into the world as a human then it seems he would have been better off picking Pagans as his background culture rather then set them up for rejection. Every indication is that the divinity of Jesus developed over time even if we can find passages that indicate the divine king which included Davidic kings. Cyrus was God's anointed where Pharaohs and kings had many of the same titles we find in Isaiah.
Roman leader also made claims and you can see where a competing Jesus would take on the same titles in a pagan world. Granted there were traditions within second temple Judaism where Enoch or the Second Adam or even the Son of Man took on divine qualities and titles but it is taken they were not the same as being God but acted as his representative. Even the "Messenger of the Lord" or "Angel of the Lord" would hardly make sense as why would God be his own messenger?
There is every reason to believe the gospel writers were not independent and there was a development or growth of Christology as well as liberal use of the LXX to fill in the stories. Even the fictional speeches of Acts seem borrowed. Peter give a speech lifted right from Ezekiel where he says he never ate anything unclean which seems to be Pauline and not something Jesus taught as indicated in the gospels. You would think Paul would have used the teaching of Jesus had he expressed such notions and his complaints concerning the Jerusalem "pillars" would have been unnecessary. But Peter and others, by Paul's own account, withdrew from him as he curses and ridicules them.
I don't often get the chance to disagree with Goat and in this case it is largely the meaning of Messiah that is at odds. The prophets wrote of a king from the line of David after the return which never came to to be given there was never the reestablishment of the kingship. It vanished with the prophets.goat wrote: Well, there is no such thing as a messanic Jew. If you are 'messanic' you aren't Jewish.
But I must agree with Goat I principle as the idea of a Messiah is very different then the idea of a human being/God and the two should not be equated. An anointed could be a priest as it is in the 2nd century BCE book of Daniel.
-
Catharsis
Post #70
<<<Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah>>>
The Great Revelation of the Son of God (the highest Revelation in the history of religion from the Christian viewpoint) is that God is Love. This was simply undreamed of in the Old Testament, where God is largely understood as the defender of the Jews. This says nothing about the nature of God, but a lot about the nature of Jewish culture. This is why the vast majority of the Jews rejected Christ, because he turned out not to be an anti-Roman ethnic freedom-fighter, but a spiritual leader. The Jews were so disappointed that they murdered Him.
The human understanding of God is called 'anthropomorphism', this means seeing and understanding God not as He is, but in a human form. The Old Testament is full of anthropomorphisms: God takes revenge, God hardens the heart, God punishes, God kills etc etc. In other words God is seen as an Almighty Emperor, Who kills, Who destroys etc etc. Here parallels can be drawn with the primitive myths of the Ancient Greeks, who marry, rape, kill, are subject to human passions. The value of the Old Testament, at least from the Orthodox Christian viewpoint is not in these anthropomorphisms, it is in the revelations concerning the Coming of Christ. This is why the Church uses the Book of Psalms and the other Books of Prophets so much, whereas other parts are very little used or read (for example Deuteronomy, Leviticus, the ritual food laws, and the Historical Books (called Kingdoms in the Orthodox text). This is also why, for instance, the Orthodox Church has daily readings from the Scriptures which are taken not from the Old Testament, but from the Gospels and the Epistles. The 'Old' Testament is indeed old, not new.
It is unfortunate that at the Reformation the Protestants reverted to such a large extent to the Old Testament, rather like the Jews and even the Muslims. Indeed the Protestants even used the tenth century Jewish text of the Old Testament for their translation, rather than the far older (by twelve centuries) Greek translation. Specifically, the oldest version of the Old Testament that we have was written in the third century B.C. in Greek. Although Christ spoke in Aramaic, it is the text of this version that Christ often quotes from in the New Testament, and not the Hebrew text of the Old Testament which was written down by the Non-Christian Jews in the tenth century A. D. Their Hebrew text is significantly different in a number of places. Similarly all the oldest original surviving texts of the New Testament are written in Greek. (And the Greek word for books is Vivlia, from which we have the word Bible. It is no coincidence that this word Bible is a Greek word. Both the Old Testament, together with the Deuterocanonical Scriptures (sometimes called The Apocrypha by the Non-Orthodox world) and the New Testament, are composed of a large number of different books.)
The Great Revelation of the Son of God (the highest Revelation in the history of religion from the Christian viewpoint) is that God is Love. This was simply undreamed of in the Old Testament, where God is largely understood as the defender of the Jews. This says nothing about the nature of God, but a lot about the nature of Jewish culture. This is why the vast majority of the Jews rejected Christ, because he turned out not to be an anti-Roman ethnic freedom-fighter, but a spiritual leader. The Jews were so disappointed that they murdered Him.
The human understanding of God is called 'anthropomorphism', this means seeing and understanding God not as He is, but in a human form. The Old Testament is full of anthropomorphisms: God takes revenge, God hardens the heart, God punishes, God kills etc etc. In other words God is seen as an Almighty Emperor, Who kills, Who destroys etc etc. Here parallels can be drawn with the primitive myths of the Ancient Greeks, who marry, rape, kill, are subject to human passions. The value of the Old Testament, at least from the Orthodox Christian viewpoint is not in these anthropomorphisms, it is in the revelations concerning the Coming of Christ. This is why the Church uses the Book of Psalms and the other Books of Prophets so much, whereas other parts are very little used or read (for example Deuteronomy, Leviticus, the ritual food laws, and the Historical Books (called Kingdoms in the Orthodox text). This is also why, for instance, the Orthodox Church has daily readings from the Scriptures which are taken not from the Old Testament, but from the Gospels and the Epistles. The 'Old' Testament is indeed old, not new.
It is unfortunate that at the Reformation the Protestants reverted to such a large extent to the Old Testament, rather like the Jews and even the Muslims. Indeed the Protestants even used the tenth century Jewish text of the Old Testament for their translation, rather than the far older (by twelve centuries) Greek translation. Specifically, the oldest version of the Old Testament that we have was written in the third century B.C. in Greek. Although Christ spoke in Aramaic, it is the text of this version that Christ often quotes from in the New Testament, and not the Hebrew text of the Old Testament which was written down by the Non-Christian Jews in the tenth century A. D. Their Hebrew text is significantly different in a number of places. Similarly all the oldest original surviving texts of the New Testament are written in Greek. (And the Greek word for books is Vivlia, from which we have the word Bible. It is no coincidence that this word Bible is a Greek word. Both the Old Testament, together with the Deuterocanonical Scriptures (sometimes called The Apocrypha by the Non-Orthodox world) and the New Testament, are composed of a large number of different books.)
