Judaism

[abercius24]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1406770' date='Oct 21 2007, 07:22 PM']Anyone have any thoughts about these quotes. They are from aish.com a Jewish website.

From John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, we get this:

"Jews are the most worthless of men - they are lecherous, greedy, rapacious - they are perfidious murderers of Christians, they worship the devil, their religion is a sickness ... The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing god there is no expiation, no indulgence, no pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance. The Jews must live in servitude forever. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate the Jews."

From Gregory of Nyssa, we get more of the same:

"Slayers of the lord, murderers of the prophets, adversaries of god, haters of god, men who show contempt for the law, foes of grace, enemies of the father's faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men whose minds are in darkness, leaven of the Pharisees, assembly of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of righteousness."[/quote]

I believe these quotes (if they are legitimate) are directed more toward the majority of the Jewish leadership that existed in the time of Christ and those who followed their evil example. Christ Himself called them "a brood of vipers" (Matthew 23:33) and "a Synogogue of Satan" (Revelation 3:9). Given that Christ and His Blessed Mother were Jews themselves, He could not have been referring to the Jewish people as a whole. He does make reference many times in the Scriptures alluding to the idea that the Jewish leadership in His day were possessed by demonic forces. Though I would not go as far as St. John Chrysostom, I can understand the Early Church's harsh view of the Jewish leadership in their day given all the persecution they suffered at their hands. There were many, many Christians who lost their lives because of the wickedness of the Sanhedrin. The fear and anguish the Church felt at that time cannot be ignored. Should this lead us to hate a whole race of people? Anyone who holds such a reprehensible idea would by default place themselves among those who committed such atrocities. Evil is evil, whether the perpetrators or victims be Christians or Jews. Given the context that the Church sat as victims of the Jewish leadership at the time, one can read more pain from the above statements than what we today would call racism. Given all that has happened in the last 100 years, I don't think either of the gentlemen quoted above would dare make such rash comments that could be misinterpreted so easily.

Edited October 23, 2007 by abercius24

[hyperdulia again]

Abercius I think your posts are a thing to prayerfully read. I am very confused. Cathoholic ditto.

I want to state clearly that I don't believe the Church is currently antisemitic.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1407412' date='Oct 22 2007, 05:15 PM']I here this continual assertion that Rabbinical Judaism, is not Biblical Judaism, but I'm not sure if I believe it. The claim of a revealed oral tradition (a Sacred Tradition if you will) seems compelling to me. As for the crimes of individuals being visitable on all the Jewish people, from God's eye or anyone else's, this simply cannot be true.

I will go back to Aish to see if the quotes offer citations, but I can think of a half-dozen times I've heard saints and Popes say things like this. I think this is the worst struggle I've ever had with the Church.[/quote]
A revealed tradition occurs through a medium, in the case of Israel, first through Moses and later through the prophets. "Thus saith the Lord" wasn't simply a figure of speech. Otherwise, a bunch of guys getting together and saying, "Well, the Temple is no more, so good deeds will now be our sacrifice" is no better than David Koresh deciding to set up on [i]his[/i] own.

As an aside, I was reading the Gospel of Matthew last night - the Gospel directed toward a Jewish audience, incidentally - and was reminded that upon Jesus' death on the Cross, the Temple's veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was torn in two. In other words, through Jesus' death on the Cross, we now have free access to God.

I guess my question for you is, even if you [i]could[/i] go back to the Judaism of the Old Covenant, or any other flavor of Judaism, for that matter, why would you [i]want[/i] to? Why would you want to live under the Law rather than grace? Why would you want the shadow rather than the substance?

[Aloysius]

Rabbinical Judaism would only make sense if there was a proper authority present to do it. There was no prophet, no messiah, the leaders who came together at Jamnia did not even have authority based on Judaism. It all comes down to this: what happened in the first century? Either the Messiah came, revealed something spectacular about God and opened the covenant up to Jew and Gentile alike, or the Romans destroyed the temple and the Jewish leaders scrambled together to continue on with a religion which had previously claimed that the temple was absolutely necessary.

There is a fascinating thing that happened around the 14th century AD with some cabalist Jews studying; there was a saying from Rabbinical Judaism, don't know if it was cabalistic or just in the talmud or something, which said that with the destruction of the Temple, the place where God had dwelt upon the Earth, figuratively, the "Yod He" of His name (the Tetragramaton, YHWH) had been split from the "Vau He" of His name, and that they would only be reunited when the messiah came in glory. The letter "shin" was the first letter of the hebrew word often used in the Old Testament to refer to the presence of God, the Spirit of God; these cabalists (you know how they like to play with Hebrew letters ) found that if you put the "shin", seen as the hebrew letter which symbolized God's spirit, in between the "Yod He" and the "Vau He", you got "Yod He Shin Vau He", ie, Yeheshua, ie Jesus. Great numbers of Jews actually converted based upon this, it was a great way that revealed the Trinity to them; the presence of the Father who had been present throughout the Old Testament and had revealed His name as "YHWH" in the temple seemed to have left the face of the earth, only because they had not realized that in the coming of the Son and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit, the Father's presence had been ever more revealed in the world and the material world had been redeemed through the incarnation.

Oh, and I tried to make clear that no individual jew alive today (or at the time of these as yet unsubstantiated quotes) bears any guilt for Christ's death... but must I then also state that no individual jew alive today, or even alive at the time of Christ, was actually brought out of the land of Egypt, was actually brought out of slavery. But "the Jews" are spoken to in that manner; Christ addresses them as the ones who slew the prophets, God speaks to them saying He brought them out of Egypt, and at Passovers they make that event present to them.

[hyperdulia again]

1. it's unadultered nonsense to say jamnia represented some kind of break with tradition.
2. crisis averted. i believe jesus is god. no real way around that.

[Aloysius]

""After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh [ie Jamnia]; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority."
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

I do not believe it had the authority to replace the Sanhedrin by Jewish standards, because it did not have the representative charecter or national authority necessary according to the religion of Israel.

I certainly do not believe it had authority by Christian standards, simply because Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles, but that's another story.

I don't understand your problem with my statements about Jamnia, then. It simply did not possess the authority of Israel, there was no more Israel... and without an Israel the Old Testament religion has clearly and definitively ended. The Old Testament religion was the religion of a nation, that nation being Israel. When there was no more nation, there was no more authority; but rather than acknowledge this and recognize the movement of Christians who said that the Messiah had come, they established a way to follow the old ways without really following the old ways (because there was no way for them to do so anymore)

[hyperdulia again]

I think the ultimate antisemitic lie is to claim that Judaism as practiced today is not OT Judaism. "Rabbinic Judaism" represents organic growth that started long before the first century. And is particularly evident in the Deuterocanonicals (that the Jeews ironically reject).

Modern Orthodox Judaism is about as different from OT Judaism as modern Catholic Christianity is from first century Catholic Christianity.

[hyperdulia again]

"Modern Orthodox Judaism is about as different from OT Judaism as modern Catholic Christianity is from first century Catholic Christianity."

And in the same kind of inconsequentiial particulars. Ritual, broadened theological understandings, etc.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1407862' date='Oct 23 2007, 11:39 AM']I think the ultimate antisemitic lie is to claim that Judaism as practiced today is not OT Judaism. "Rabbinic Judaism" represents organic growth that started long before the first century. And is particularly evident in the Deuterocanonicals (that the Jeews ironically reject).

Modern Orthodox Judaism is about as different from OT Judaism as modern Catholic Christianity is from first century Catholic Christianity.[/quote]
"Organic growth" is neither here nor there. The Old Covenant as expressed through the Tanakh was, in the first instance, the Law given by God through Moses; the historical books recounting God's dealing with Israel as a nation; and, finally, the prophets.

How do you go from a system of worship defined to the [i]n[/i]th degree based on the blood sacrifice of animals, for which the Temple was indispensable, to a system in which you say, "Bummer, the Temple doesn't exist any more, let's invent our own way of doing things?"

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1407858' date='Oct 23 2007, 12:28 PM']I don't understand your problem with my statements about Jamnia, then. It simply did not possess the authority of Israel, there was no more Israel... and without an Israel the Old Testament religion has clearly and definitively ended. The Old Testament religion was the religion of a nation, that nation being Israel. When there was no more nation, there was no more authority; but rather than acknowledge this and recognize the movement of Christians who said that the Messiah had come, they established a way to follow the old ways without really following the old ways (because there was no way for them to do so anymore)[/quote]

Jamnia not having authority..no it didn't Peter or Linus did.

Still it's a Christian fantasy (along with ritual murder, and race guilt) that Jamnia represented a break with Jewish tradition. It is also a bleeding of Christian doctrine into Judaism to suggest that even for Jews Jamnia was anything like one of our ecumenical councils. It simply was not that important.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1407865' date='Oct 23 2007, 12:46 PM']How do you go from a system of worship defined to the [i]n[/i]th degree based on the blood sacrifice of animals, for which the Temple was indispensable, to a system in which you say, "Bummer, the Temple doesn't exist any more, let's invent our own way of doing things?"[/quote]


And old Israel was temple-less before. It is temple-less now. Ahistorical fantasy. And God Himself didn't particularly want the first temple. "What kind of house shall you build for me?"

[hyperdulia again]

re: unsubstantiated quote, there is quite frankly, enough antisemitic nonsense floating around for jews to not have to make anything up.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1407867' date='Oct 23 2007, 11:49 AM']And old Israel was temple-less before. It is temple-less now. Ahistorical fantasy. And God Himself didn't particularly want the first temple. "What kind of house shall you build for me?"[/quote]
Ultimately, the question comes back to what I asked earlier: why would you want to live under the Law rather than grace? Why would you want the shadow rather than the substance?

In addition, we must accept either that a) God said, "This is the New Covenant that I establish with all people" through the Person or work of Jesus Christ, or b) we're all left to our own devices to make up whatever we want.

For me, this is enough:

[i]Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you [b]new[/b] in the kingdom of my Father."[/i]

Mt. 26:27-9

I'm not saying it's not enough for you. What I don't understand is, what is the attraction of going backwards?

Edited October 23, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[Aloysius]

As I explained before, quotes end up fabricated around the internet in malicious ways and accidental ways, I just want a citation so I could look at it in its original context or in its original language to know that it is accurate. It's usually a bad sign for the authenticity (or at least accuracy of the wording) of a quote when you google search it and the only things you come up with are non-cited web pages with a particular agenda. I question any quote that turns up such results on google, not necessarily thinking that anyone maliciously made it up, but things get misworded in translations, misquoted on forums/blogs/web pages, mistyped, misattributed (sometimes quotes are attributed to someone who had nothing to do with saying them because a random amateur website/blog/forum just happened to put a name of some historical figure close to a quote).

But then I proceeded to discuss the meaning anyway, just because I presume there are things like this in Christian history and so my general explanation was meant to cover any such things in Christian history.

Before discussing the quote in specifics, I would expect to have access to it in its original context and be able to look it up in its original language to make sure none of these things happen; they do, indeed, happen all the time.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1407901' date='Oct 23 2007, 02:23 PM']I'm not saying it's not enough for you. What I don't understand is, what is the attraction of going backwards?[/quote]

Would to God that I knew.