Against the Jews

[rusmeister]

I have never "insisted" any of you to use Jewish names.

My context for this is 98% humorous. Но в каждой шутке есть доля правды.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize for asking you to repeat what was already stated. There were so many pages here that I didn't go through all of them and I didn't think someone had made an inquiry such as mine prior.

I edited some of what I said after you quoted me, for clarification. You can go back and reread it if you want. There's really nothing to apologize for, because, yeah, the thread is seven pages long at this point (and this response to you is on page eight). As you can probably see, there's also been a lot of extraneous bickering.

Eastern Orthodox then is the closest to the actual teachings of Christ and his Disciples? May I ask, do you ascribe to the canonical texts, the Christian Bible that many of us use? Or is there a more in depth scriptural collection that EO refer to?
I know I could seek these answers via a search engine but I prefer the personal route in asking the practitioner(s) themselves. I appreciate your indulging me in my query.

I'm in the process of converting, but my process has been slow, because despite my beliefs aligning with the basic tenets of Orthodoxy, I'm not 100% ready to make the leap. Personally, I need to find out what's holding me back before I can move forward. To answer your questions, the EO Church believes that we are the original Church that has not made changes to the beliefs promulgated by early believers and the early Church.

Eastern Orthodoxy (perhaps even Oriental Orthodoxy - they have a forum here, for what it's worth, but there aren't many posters there) is the Church that has fostered the Christian Scriptures from their inception, and the Orthodox Church is also the Church that created canons of these Scriptures to put them together in the Bible found today. Yes, our Bible has more books than the typical Protestant Bible (such as the highly used KJV), but during the Reformation, many of the reformers rejected the canons the early Church used for the OT (the Septuagint) in favor of the canons that Hebraic Jewish scholars pieced together many centuries after the Church put together the Bible. For what it's worth, the Septuagint is essentially the OT that the Jews in Christ's time, as well as the early Christians, used. Some scholars suggest that the later Jewish changes made during piecing together the canons of their own scriptures was done to reject some of the books and sections of books (as well as certain stylistic wording seen in the Septuagint) that do indeed point to Jesus as the Messiah.

If you look at early Greek and Hebrew OT manuscripts, there are some discrepancies between them. This is not because Scripture is fallible, but because copying and transcription was done by hand, so there are discrepancies due to copyist error as human scribes (and translators!) are fallible.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I appreciate your introspection in matters of your taking time to fully convert. If there's something holding you back that is certainly to be paid attention to. God be with you. And thank you again.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm in the process of converting, but my process has been slow, because despite my beliefs aligning with the basic tenets of Orthodoxy, I'm not 100% ready to make the leap. Personally, I need to find out what's holding me back before I can move forward.

What is holding you back, if I may ask?

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

What is holding you back, if I may ask?

To be honest, I'm not really sure. I need to introspect (including prayer) to figure out exactly what it is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But did you read the rest of my post and understand it?

I guess people just have certain things they want to do whether it annoys the crowd or not. GxG2 likes to post three or four posts in succession with 50 imbedded YouTube videos, 30 links, 2,000 words, etc. it cuts readership like 90% but he keeps doing it. Others put up divisive inaccurate stats about evolution. Others quote Chesterton for everything. Others mention Seinfeld and Star Trek and Dune too much! LOL then still others say, "you didn't read my whole post! You never do!" We're quite a motley little crew here, and I'm not talkin' about the 80's band!!!

I have never "insisted" any of you to use Jewish names.

 

[gzt]

It would have been nice for the drive-by poster to explain his understanding of the events without condescension, though.

The drive-by poster isn't the problem, he's quite right to point out the problematic nature of that statement.

 

[gzt]

IFor what it's worth, the Septuagint is essentially the OT that the Jews in Christ's time, as well as the early Christians, used. Some scholars suggest that the later Jewish changes made during piecing together the canons of their own scriptures was done to reject some of the books and sections of books (as well as certain stylistic wording seen in the Septuagint) that do indeed point to Jesus as the Messiah.

If you look at early Greek and Hebrew OT manuscripts, there are some discrepancies between them. This is not because Scripture is fallible, but because copying and transcription was done by hand, so there are discrepancies due to copyist error as human scribes (and translators!) are fallible.

This is overstated and false. See this series (starting from this post) for a more accurate understanding of the differences between MT and LXX: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septuagint-part-1/

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

This is overstated and false. See this series (starting from this post) for a more accurate understanding of the differences between MT and LXX: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septuagint-part-1/

OK, then AFR is contradicting itself:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/the_eastern_orthodox_approach_to_the_bible

Probably because there's disagreement on the subject. (Like I mentioned, if you actually read my post without jumping down my throat.) And browsing through the link you gave me, it doesn't look contradictory to what I've said at all - I even mentioned that it was what SOME scholars thought. There are several different versions of everything, and it took a while for all of it to be standardized, even in the Church and even amongst Jewish scholars.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

==

I have never "insisted" any of you to use Jewish names.

Not really certain why the OP seems sidetracked with this smaller conversation that has happened before several times without it being the case that it was ever ONE side predominant over the other in the name of what readers think since there has always been diverse readership (And you and I both known, based on the PMS or "Like" clicks done on various postings that people vary). St. John was the one being discussed and there's plenty to choose from on that subject than be focused on minor issues.


As was already stated:

[

In consideration, I would like to point members back to the OP on St. John Chrysostom.

"The beginning of strife is like letting out water,
So abandon the quarrel before it breaks out."

[/QUOTE]​

That said, if I may say, it really is not worth losing sleep over - or responding to since there have always been people on both sides of the street regardless of the matter. No one has even insisted others speak the same they do (or doing inane things such as claiming all have to participate in Jewish customs/culture as early Jewish Christians did - as Judaizing was always about demanding others participate in Jewish customs like festivals or feasts to be acceptable to God - meaning those claiming 'judaizing' are using the term in ignorance every time it comes up where the name Yeshua is said....). Ethiopian Orthodox Jews, Jews in Byzantine Orthodoxy...they do not trip over the use of the name so it's beneath people here to raise issue in sweeping terms and then do character battles focusing on posters rather than simply respecting the author of the OP in what he wanted to be a focus.

But of course, there will always be diverse responses because it is a diverse group. There will always be people more light-hearted than others and some who are more prone to seeing all things as serious. Some will have no issue if you use slang terms whereas others vehemently hate it if they are not familiar with it whereas other posters are and interact easily.

Some will never like it if someone loves liberal perspectives above conservative ones - and others, if speaking about Democrats favorably will be demonized as supporting all of their evils (and vice versa if going Republican) - some people don't like it if there's an ethnic focus for Serbians (believing it exclusionary/dishonest and noting it in any conversation they see it) whereas others note they have issue with people denouncing others who don't think it necessary to always have an axe to grind on the issue when people are passionately defending the people...

There will always be debates between others who have no problem reading past a couple of paragraphs/easily dissecting information and then people unable to do - people saying "Everyone processes differently" (as many have on the forum) and others saying "We all process like this!!" in reaching for the claims of how all on a forum somehow see something (when there's no evidence all readers or majority even see things the same when the list of current posters always shifts - some here today agreeing and others from the past being like-minded and the same with others present disagreeing/having past others disagree too). There will always be people saying their preferences are what God desires above all else and others saying "God is not that concerned" - Be it having discussions where others don't like referencing certain priests in preference to others - or people not prone to jesting/exaggerations on others while others are more inclined to do so and may be bothered at times if it's done to them....

Some people see the internet forum as a place to discuss concepts whereas others see it as place to discuss the inner-details of their parish /failures of spiritual fathers without issue in airing things out....even though there may be discussion simultaneously on not liking it if other posters discuss them ("Do as I say, Not as I do")...and others disagree vehemently in noting it to be gossip/slander that is out of bounds. For others, the way they respond to others is the way they would like others to respond to them (As Thekla has noted to me on a number of occasions), meaning that some prefer concise explanations while others prefer in-depth/detailed reviews with the references to where information came from (like a bread-crumb trail or footnotes) and generally do not care to raise any fuss if others do so knowingly or unknowingly - but others may not want to deal with anything that they can't get through quickly and they keep going whereas others take time to note it. The list goes on...

And of course, there are some people saying you can't enjoy secular music as an Orthodox Christian while others say is about your heart intention...or some who may not like any mention of Islamic culture as a positive whereas others see no issue speaking positively in their experiences with Muslims. Again, the list goes on.

No one here owns anyone and some things really are not that deep..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

http://orthodoxbiblestudy.info/st-john-chrysostom-anti-semite/

Interesting review and thanks for posting it, as we can still see people as saints while also recognizing areas where there may not have been flawlessness - just like it is with Constantine and others in the history of the Church we do not rubber-stamp as being above examination.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Although my concentration in my major was bioanthropology, we still had to take classes in a cultural area. My focus area was on the Middle East. So I took four semesters of Modern Standard Arabic, Middle Eastern Cultures, Islamic Cultures, History of the Middle East, History of Islam, Arabic Literature in Translation, etc. Two of my professors for these courses were Muslim (the first two semesters of MSA and the courses on Islam), three were Christian. They seemed pretty much in agreement with the idea that the establishment of Israel destabilized a region that was already very unstable; really, the establishment of Israel just worsened the effects of the volatility in the region because of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the bizarre, arbitrary carving up of its territory.

I don't think it was so much the establishment of Israel as much as it was how the state was established and how others were treated in the process.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

I don't think it was so much the establishment of Israel as much as it was how the state was established and how others were treated in the process.

That's just semantic quibbling, and it doesn't contradict anything I said or what I meant, since those concepts are encompassed within the establishment of Israel. However, I'm more about the general overarching picture instead of the details.

 

[gzt]

It's more this part that's objectionable: Some scholars suggest that the later Jewish changes made during piecing together the canons of their own scriptures was done to reject some of the books and sections of books (as well as certain stylistic wording seen in the Septuagint) that do indeed point to Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's just semantic quibbling, and it doesn't contradict anything I said or what I meant, since those concepts are encompassed within the establishment of Israel. However, I'm more about the general overarching picture instead of the details.

Claiming semantic quibbing doesn't show semantics as that's a basic many scholars in the Middle East have pointed out for some time (and yes, I had to take several courses as well on the issue so please do not assume). One can calmly sit down and ask what others mean please BEFORE responding without understanding, as no one was concerned with contradicting what you said. The establishment of a homeland for Jewish people is NOT something Arabic people were universally against - but the process of how it played out (in regards to the Zionists and their abuses of both Jews and Arabs) is a different matter altogether ...as both Jews and Arabs were harmed in the process.

 

[gzt]

And the textual history of the LXX and MS are of course more complicated than scribal error, but rather that there's a multiplicity of mss traditions floating around, some from scribal error, but when big chunks are different or missing, it's more than just transmission.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

It's more this part that's objectionable: Some scholars suggest that the later Jewish changes made during piecing together the canons of their own scriptures was done to reject some of the books and sections of books (as well as certain stylistic wording seen in the Septuagint) that do indeed point to Jesus as the Messiah.

I don't see how my statement contradicts either the blog post you posted, or the transcript of the podcast that I posted. Indeed, some scholars DO suggest that the differences between the Septuagint as used today and the Masoretic as used today, and how those canons came about, are partly due to Judaism's rejection of Christ. There are discrepancies between Masoretic texts and some of the dead sea scrolls, so on and so forth. There is also some stylistic differences between the Masoretic texts and the texts of the Septuagint; this stylistic difference is largely due to translation.

Claiming semantic quibbing doesn't show semantics as that's a basic many scholars in the Middle East have pointed out for some time (and yes, I had to take several courses as well on the issue so please do not assume). One can calmly sit down and ask what others mean please BEFORE responding without understanding, as no one was concerned with contradicting what you said. The establishment of a homeland for Jewish people is NOT something Arabic people were universally against - but the process of how it played out (in regards to the Zionists and their abuses of both Jews and Arabs) is a different matter altogether ...as both Jews and Arabs were harmed in the process.

I'm perfectly calm, but your tone did seem to be an attempt to contradict my statement. Perhaps you should have clarified that in your first post, and given me the same benefit of the doubt you're saying I should've extended to you. Not trying to be rude, but that kind of door swings both ways. I'm not discounting what you've said, but in terms of how I understand and relate to the world (in terms of generalities), my statement totally encompasses what you said. I also did not in any way suggest that the establishment of a homeland was something that Arabs were universally against; that said, the establishment of Israel from the state-making standpoint (not just the process of how the establishment played out), was in fact destabilizing for the whole region in the boundary-drawing process. To expand further on the boundary process, the arbitrary boundary drawing for all of the countries in that region done by colonial powers was pretty destabilizing in the first place.

That's pretty much what I meant by "establishment of Israel" in the post you were referencing.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

(Sorry for the grammar issues in the above post. Apparently I fail at English grammar today.)

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But did you read the rest of my post and understand it?

I guess people just have certain things they want to do whether it annoys the crowd or not. GxG2 likes to post three or four posts in succession with 50 imbedded YouTube videos, 30 links, 2,000 words, etc. it cuts readership like 90% but he keeps doing it. Others put up divisive inaccurate stats about evolution. Others quote Chesterton for everything. Others mention Seinfeld and Star Trek and Dune too much! LOL then still others say, "you didn't read my whole post! You never do!" We're quite a motley little crew here, and I'm not talkin' about the 80's band!!!

Yes I did, thank you. Can I say Shalom? ;-)

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

It's not even out of the question to link the fall of the Ottoman Empire - and the subsequent swooping in of European powers to carve up and divvy out the territory - to the current disarray of the Middle East that's occurring at the moment.