"judaizing"

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Indeed....

Context on what you noted makes a difference - as was discussed before in another thread pertaining to that very issue

Moreover, although I saw the thread dynamics and wasn't really planning on getting involved extensively, one can go here for more extensive information on the issue from the perspective of a Jewish individual who's Eastern Orthodox and married to a Melkite Catholic - as I appreciated her perspective.

• Two Fights To Pick | The Groom's Family

Others I've greatly appreciated have been folks such as Fr. James Bernstein of the book "Surprised by Christ" in which he shares the experiences that led him to his conversions – first from Judaism to Protestant Christianity, then to Orthodoxy under the Antiochian jurisdiction.....with the battles against anti-Semitism being real and yet later coming to understand just how much confusion there was in not properly understanding the Church Fathers (both in their struggles - as well as seeing them as reflections of the times they lived in) and seeing what the Church was meant to point to for the Jews.

There's also what's seen in how St. Vladimir’s Seminary professor Dr. Peter Bouteneff reflects on his fascinating opportunity over 4 weeks in February of 2009 to address a Jewish congregation on the subject of “Christians and Jews in the First 4 Centuries of our Era (from the podcast Sweeter than Honey by Dr. Peter Bouteneff ) - as noted here.

Seeing the thread, I've seen it said repeatedly by some that anyone supporting things within the NT is automatically against the concept of fulfillment - although I disagree for a number of reasons when seeing what was actually practiced within the Church itself.

For fulfillment being found in practices of Christianity isn't something opposite of appreciation for where something developed. You recognized things as shadows/previews of what's to come - but you don't HATE your shadow or divorce yourself from it like Peter Pan trying to catch his And in the same way, practices that were incomplete in the OT (because they were done in preview of who the Messiah was/what He'd do) don't cease to be valuable simply because of His arrival and what the Church went on to do......NO more than artifacts/relics (part of the heritage of a culture with high meaning) in a museum have to be destroyed because society has advanced past them. You recognize the past and appreciate the future it set up for you..

And when and if you want to utilize it, you don't do so assuming all aspects of it are superior to what has developed since it is incomplete. It's the same within Christianity. Jesus made it clear that He was the fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets (see Matthew 5:17-19), while the disciples recognized Him to be the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke (see John 1:45; Acts 3:24-26). After His resurrection, the Lord said to His disciples, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), commissioning them to preach “repentance and forgiveness of sins . . . in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47) - and yet within the history of the Church, you saw it where Jewish believers continued to celebrate their Jewish heritage the Lord gave them (i.e. circumcision, celebrating the Feasts/Festivals, Synagogue practice, etc.) - while you had Gentile Christians celebrate what the Lord had developed in them within Gentile culture....and other Gentiles who chose to live Jewish due to what the Spirit called them to.

And both seeing what occurred in the OT as a matter of Christ being present/previewing what was to come (one of the reasons why study of the Law was valuable when it came to knowing the concept of shadow pointing to SUBSTANCE in Christ - Colossians 2:16-18 Hebrews 8 Hebrews 10:1-3 )

All of it was working together to show the work of Jew and Gentile one in the Messiah - together for Him - and having different battles...knowing that only in Christ was true redemption present, while BOTH understood the reality of what it meant to be a part of God's Israel - the Church (Jew and Gentile) being the New Israel (contrasted with non-believing Israel that unsaved Jews were with)...

And in MANY parts of the Church, this is an everyday reality. We see this with the Ethiopian Orthodox in how they live out their lives and how they repeatedly practiced things....even celebrating on Saturday as well as Sunday as well as other customs(consistent with early Jewish practice - due in part to many who were Ethiopian Jews while also due to respecting the lifestyle of Jewish culture).....and thankfully, they have remained consistent in doing so with the example of the early Church since it's done in honor of the Lord/celebration of Him.

Theology itself in the Early Church doesn't lend itself to the idea to assume that anything pertaining to the OT was automatically within the negative and only that within the NT was good. That was something akin to the heresy of Marcionism which tried to divorce the God of the OT from the God of the NT in a false scenario ...but the Early Church valued OT practice (more shared here, here, here). ...one of the basic examples of that being seen in what occurred with Jewish Iconography in Ancient Synagogues being the template from which icons in the Early Church/Orthodoxy came to develop from....for anyone remotely aware of Ancient Jewish Icons....and there are other aspects to the issue as well (more shared in #88 / #15/ #214 ).

Of course, anything trying to impose that Gentiles HAVE to be akin to the Jews in how they live is something the Apostles/Jesus himself fought against (which was what was at stake with the Heresy of the Ebionites - #91 )...in the same way that they didn't cease being Jewish in practice since different churches had different battles (some having Gentiles ignore/disrespect the Jews in their lifestyle and others where Gentiles were being pressured to live as Jewish believers - both addressed in Romans 14-15 and Galatians 2-4 and Acts 11 and Acts 15 for more info).....and Paul having to note the reality of respect. The Early Church was very much Jewish in practice - and evolved over time in multiple respects when it coms to Orthodox practice...


And there were many complicated reasons for those developments - including the aspect of how other Church Fathers who were Jewish got forgotten in history .... Hegesippus coming to mind.. But as noted elsewhere...sadly, within many parts of Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a strong anti-Jewish sentiment that is neither truly what Orthodoxy is meant to be about - nor what the Early Church was ever meant to reflect........and that's something that is unfortunate, even though it is also understandable seeing that many were reacting against what they saw in Judaism when seeing how non-believing Jews were treating those who considered Christianity (i.e. persecuting Christians, selling them out to Romans to be destroyed, defaming Christ/slander, etc.) - with this not necessarily being what ALL unbelieving Jews were doing but a significant number nonetheless - and thus, they (i.e. many of the Fathers) reacted equally extreme by being against any/everything connected to Jewish practices which even the Lord was not ashamed of. And sadly, many of the Jewish Christians got caught in the cross-fire..

People are not infalliable - and neither were the Fathers, as amazing as they are and instructive for how we're to live our lives - but we can still understand where they were at and be thankful for them rather than dismissive.....and not understanding where they were coming from when it came to the very REAL threat of believers choosing to be swept into full-blown Judaism due to Jews seeking to gain converts from among the Christians (more shared in #13 ). For more scholarly study, there's an excellent work known as In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity By Oskar Skarsaune (more shared here and here and here) - with there being many views among the people.

YES! I too was wondering if you were going to comment

 

[Thekla]

Great points... And thanks for sharing..

Composition of the audience and knowing the times/setting make a world of difference when it comes to interpretation - and how much grace we either do or don't give to issues.

I've others often note that the dynamics with anti-Semitism are understood as such due to others not realizing that people often take on roles intentionally for a greater goal in mind - essentially playing the role of a "villain" due to how those they were speaking against already chose to demonize them first....before they adopted the persona and used it to respond in kind ...

It's why I often have issue whenever Jews speak repeatedly of anti-Semitism in the Church (which has occurred) and yet contrasting themselves as the ones who alone were innocent/being picked on - even though there was EXTENSIVE history where many of the non-believing Jews did horrible things to Gentiles.....specifically BEFORE Christianity even became legal in the Roman Empire (i.e. verbal/physical attacks, betraying other Christians to the Roman Authorities as those in Jewish synagogues sought converts from among the same audience as the Christians, etc.) - with even Jewish Christians being harmed by non-belieiving Jews in the SAME WAY the prophets and other Jewish believers were harmed in the times of the OT and that of Christ - Stephen from Acts 6-7 being amongst the most famous example. As antagonistic as the Jews were to Rome in relationship, they got WAY more protection than Jewish believers - and Gentile Believers were still wrestling with the thought of where they belonged in the Church.....them having NO protection in the Roman Empire for centuries/being harmed severely.

So when coming out of that into a time where Gentile Christians are a dominant majority and others in Judaism are still trying to wage battles against Christians, the response to what they saw in Judaism was what they felt was necessary. Some, sadly, were simply anti-Semitic in hating all Jews - but language makes a difference....and many don't take time to realize where what seem to be sweeping statements may've been addressed to specific groups with specific attitudes.

The issue, for example, of John Chrysostom calling Jews "beasts" is intriguing in light of where the Jewish Psalmists noted that unbelievers were precisely that without the Lord ( Psalm 73:21-23 / Psalm 73 and Psalm 49:19-20 Psalm 49 ) - but of course, in the hands of someone else, the same language used to describe others in imperfection (when in the hands of a Gentile having lots of issue with Jews) could be used to imply a host of other things that were not present. In one setting, the language was more than appropriate - but in the mouth of another, it became an issue of it being wrong...with no claims for wanting understanding. In many respects, this is similar to what another noted when showing how odd it is that black people often speak of not liking black people/feeling some are simply ignorant when it comes to cultural critique - with that being valid - and yet if a non-Black person says the same thing, the media and populace are quick to claim the person was "racist"/"hates all blacks!!!" - and if someone like Bill Cosby steps in saying "Black people, we need to stop making excuses whenever someone says the same thing I've been saying for years and you hate on him just because he's not black!!!!" (as he has done before on various occasions )- noting the necessity for critique even though others ignore it - they say that person is a sell-out.

... snipped ... (sorry ! for length)

Wow, this grew a bit between my first read and the (almost) end of tasks and errands

Thank-you again, and for illustrating the point.

I read some of the links - most closely the Halsal discussion, which was informative but to some extent unsatisfying. (It should be noted that imo, academia has its faults as well; people do need to make a living, and ensconsing oneself in a position that is related to one's work/publishing is not unusual. Unfortunately, this can happen more easily when one's work has been well received, regardless of its actual "validity". Ie "academia" has its pop stars, too. I don't know that this is the case here, but I do tend to regard academic discussions at arm's length.)

And maybe it's just me, but there also seems to be a modern (US) viewpoint embedded in the posting there. (What I call a "Siskel Ebert condition, where one must give an answer, and the answer can really only be thumbs up or down.)

I'm not quite sure how to say this, so I'll begin with illustrations as well:

(Based on my now decades long observation of the matter) our country has presented an entire foreign policy package as wrapped around the Iranian slogan, "Death to America". Yet as one commentator I listened to today pointed out (to paraphrase) the translation is accurate, but Iranians will also say "death to potatoes" when the price of potatoes gets too high, or "death to myself" - and in neither case do they mean that the object (potatoes, self) should be obliterated. (room for nuance met with refusal to allow for nuance)

Recently, the position that Churches should not perform gay marriages has been interpreted (and named) as hatred for all LGBT persons. My sense based on several discussions is that this is sometimes literally what is meant - ie is equal to actual hatred of all persons identifying as LGBT
(little room for nuance).

In both cases, I cannot conclusively say what is actually meant by each person involved; I don't have enough information - though I can ask each person and they can directly answer my question.

With historical figures and writings (as with persons who are too distant to engage in discussion) I am aware that there are considerations that are unavailable for my consideration. These may be literary (styles, conceits), linguistic, cultural conceits and views, immediate situation, etc. In these cases, I cannot really conclusively state much of anything.

I really don't need Chrysostom to be perfect or infallible. I do know that sometimes his language truly distresses me. I bristle at not a few passages in the Scriptures. In the latter case, I know there is something "under this" that demands I consider the passages more carefully, and not resort to a first impression.

In fact, I find myself having to look "beyond" the obvious in (popular) music, in Art, in Literary works - and often in so doing I find my first impression is amiss. But not always.

I also recognize that I live and move in an era where propaganda is the smooth overlay, the rich wood veneer over a lot of unmitigated filth. I am therefore wont to heat the veneer and peel it back to ascertain the quality of the wood underneath. Peeling back the veneer on (for example) Hitler is easy; he exposed himself in his subsequent actions. Peeling back the veneer on some who have been denounced has shown the assessment was lacking, or knee-jerk imo.

So, was Chrysostom an anti-semite ? I don't know. By today's standards, his language sure smacks of this.

But without really investigating, without a deep and broad investigation and moreso preferably discussing the matter with him, I cannot say.

 

[Zeek]

So, was Chrysostom an anti-semite ? I don't know. By today's standards, his language sure smacks of this.

But without really investigating, without a deep and broad investigation and moreso preferably discussing the matter with him, I cannot say.

I think I understand you.

But perhaps those to whom his words have actually proven historically disasterous and who have reaped the fruit of his invective, never had the luxury to consider his good points or ask him and those who acted on his words if they could be a little more specific about what he truly meant.

The trouble with criticising/distancing oneself from religious/denominational heroes such as Chrysostom, Jerome, Luther and others is that to do so is tantamount to heresy, and the real knee-jerk reaction will come from their various supporters who often won't see the wood for the trees, only that you are attacking one of their own who has been formative in moulding their branch of Christian belief.

 

[buzuxi]

A few years ago in another forum I said that whether St. John Chrysostom was an anti-Semite or not is irrelevant. I stand by what I said; that I'm glad he said it and the cowardly preachers of today should take note and preach against Islam in the very same terms.

Todays political correctness is a disease, people need to grow a spine and be able to take it as much as they dish it.

 

[ContraMundum]

A few years ago in another forum I said that whether St. John Chrysostom was an anti-Semite or not is irrelevant. I stand by what I said; that I'm glad he said it and the cowardly preachers of today should take note and preach against Islam in the very same terms.

Todays political correctness is a disease, people need to grow a spine and be able to take it as much as they dish it.

Really? You support vile language against your neighbour on the basis of his religion or ethnicity? Even though it is clear Christ does not sanction or command this, but rather the opposite?

There's a difference between making a theological point and taking a stand against sin and error and being foul mouthed, using language that incites people to violence and so forth.

 

[GregConstantine]

no one should use vile or hateful language against any specific individual person, but, one can and should use when appropriate, harsh language to criticize another religion to show what it teaches is false. Rabbic Judaism as a religion (and Islam too) are not exempt from criticism. They both have teachings that lead one away from the Truth and therefore, into perdition.
Also, modern Rabbinic Judaism is a completely different child from the true "Judaism" that the Patriarchs and the Prophets practiced and followed. That true Judaism is the very same faith as Orthodox Christianity. Modern Rabbinic Judaism came after the Messiah came to earth, and was set up in direct opposition to the true Judaism (Orthodoxy).
As was Islam, albeit in a different way.
So yes, to both. We should speak about the falsity of those religious systems, and if we need to use harsh language (and I think we do sometimes, because our modern culture is so wishy washy and tries to be so politically correct, the truth gets watered down in the process) so be it. We are too easily offended and sometimes, we just need to grow some skin and get over it.

 

[Thekla]

I think I understand you.

But perhaps those to whom his words have actually proven historically disasterous and who have reaped the fruit of his invective, never had the luxury to consider his good points or ask him and those who acted on his words if they could be a little more specific about what he truly meant.

The trouble with criticising/distancing oneself from religious/denominational heroes such as Chrysostom, Jerome, Luther and others is that to do so is tantamount to heresy, and the real knee-jerk reaction will come from their various supporters who often won't see the wood for the trees, only that you are attacking one of their own who has been formative in moulding their branch of Christian belief.

One should recall that the New Testament writings have also been labelled 'accountable' for the horror visited on the Jews (and others). The Old Testament is cited as both justification and blame for other sets of horrific acts.

What is missing is in the case of the charge re: Chrysostom (I haven't read Jerome or Luther, so can't comment) is the consideration of context (historic situation, culture, literary device, other actions, the full opus, etc.). I apply these matters to reading the Scriptures and, for example, the passage describing as "happy" the one who "dashes infants against the rocks". Maybe I shouldn't. It (and other passages in the OT) for sure works for justifying the slaughter of children in Central America and elsewhere who "might grow up to be Communists" or other unsavory persuasions.

I cannot claim to know more than I know in making an assessment; not re: Chrysostom, nor anyone else. I do know, having read across genres and historical periods, that by the standard applied to Chrysostom much Literature, Art, and Lyric should be at least slammed if not banned.

And I am well aware of folks across cultures and historical eras refusing to take responsibility for their own actions, instead blaming their actions on incitement from some author or other. That I don't buy. Am I comfortable with Chrysostom's language ? Not at all; I live in the 21st century west where literary standards and the situation are not the same - Chrysostom wouldn't get a "pass", but Kathy Acker has been critically acclaimed.

To add this link on Anti-Semitism in the New Testament:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

 

[ContraMundum]

no one should use vile or hateful language against any specific individual person, but, one can and should use when appropriate, harsh language to criticize another religion to show what it teaches is false. Rabbic Judaism as a religion (and Islam too) are not exempt from criticism. They both have teachings that lead one away from the Truth and therefore, into perdition.
Also, modern Rabbinic Judaism is a completely different child from the true "Judaism" that the Patriarchs and the Prophets practiced and followed. That true Judaism is the very same faith as Orthodox Christianity. Modern Rabbinic Judaism came after the Messiah came to earth, and was set up in direct opposition to the true Judaism (Orthodoxy).
As was Islam, albeit in a different way.
So yes, to both. We should speak about the falsity of those religious systems, and if we need to use harsh language (and I think we do sometimes, because our modern culture is so wishy washy and tries to be so politically correct, the truth gets watered down in the process) so be it. We are too easily offended and sometimes, we just need to grow some skin and get over it.

Where do you draw the line then? What is "harsh language" by the standards set by Christ? Seems to me to be slipperly slope to argue this way. We can bring strong critique to another set of beliefs- but calling its adherents "pigs" or "beasts" going too far, beyonds the boundaries or not?

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Due to multiple violations, this thread is closed permanently.
MOD HAT OFF
​