Anti-semitism [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Scott Pierson

12-10-2006, 11:39 PM

Have the Jews ever issued an offical apology for persecution of Christians ? Or for the crucifixion of Christ and the stoneing of apostles , saints, etc.** People outside the Church are always demanding that we apologize for every supposed wrong commited by self professed Christians throughout history. Of course Christians are never really persecuted (because they are always the bad guys ) and no one ever owes them an apology. Or if they are persecuted it could "never equal the horrible suffering that Jewish people have gone through.. . ". I'm sure the people who lived through the soviet gulags didnt really suffer that much, or the people slaughtered by the turks, stoned by the Jews, or martyred by the pagan romans, etc.

I guess I would have nothing against someone simply saying " we apologize if anyone Christian or calling themselves Christian has ever commited an unwarrented act of agression against Jews". In fact I think that could even be a noble thing to do, but it always goes beyond that to a big "I'm sorry we even exist the Church is so evil and every Jew is oh so innocent and you folks suffer so much because we are so evil... etc." type thing.

sorry about the rant this topic just made me think of this.

** Please note I wouldnt expect them to its just interesting to look at these things in reverse and see how silly they are. And If you say "well that was just some of the Jewish leadership who called for his death a long time ago they have no need to apologize for that now.." . then wouldnt that same logic require you to say that modern Christians dont need to apologize for the persecutions (both imagined and real) of Jews by those claiming the title of Christian in the past ?

Jennifer

13-10-2006, 12:43 AM

Irene

13-10-2006, 02:31 AM

I was impressed recently when I heard that Germany had made public their records of Jews who had been persecuted in the Holocaust. In this case, the Germans are not trying to hide the wrong that was done by the Third Reich. Instead, they are being open about it, which will prevent people from denying that it ever happened and give the families of victims a chance to learn what happened to their loved ones.

I hadn't heard this, that is good, it must be extremely painful to the Jewish people to have their suffering denied.

But, this topic brings up a question that I have. I had not realized that the Orthodox Church and its people had participated in persecution of Jews. I had not realized either that anti-semitism had been strong among Orthodox people. I know this can be a delicate topic, but have parts of the Orthodox Church carried feelings of anti-semitism? If so, it would be important to me to know that we had at least acknowledged that it was wrong.
Jennifer

I have never heard of Orthodox people persecuting the Jewish. I had only heard some old Orthodox people on occasions complain that we always hear about the Jewish suffering during the war and never about the suffering and slaughter of the Russian Orthodox people at the same time.

It leaves a nasty feeling to think that Orthodox people could have participated in persecutions of anyone, but when you think about it, being baptised Orthodox, calling yourself Orthodox, doesn't make you truly Orthodox unless you live the life, learn the humility and learn to love your enemy as yourself, so no one that was truly Orthodox would have done this. That is how I comfort myself. Still I am feeling sad about it all.

In Christ
irene

Scott Pierson

13-10-2006, 03:35 AM

There have been cases of Orthodox Christians committing violence against Jewish civilians on occasion.** The progroms. Generally they occurred when revolutionary’s would attack a czar or government official and the local population would become enraged and they would go to a Jewish area and riot or whatnot.***

** Just as instances of Jews attacking or persecuting Christians also takes place. Just as feelings of anti christianism have existed in Jewish communities ( the scribes and Pharisees being a good example ).

*** Because of the perception that Jews were disproportionaly involved in revolutionary movements ( often true ) the people would target the Jews and unfortunatly inoccent people would get hurt. Of course the fact that a jewish person does something wrong doesnt give anyone the right to randomly attack innocent jewish people.

Scott Pierson

13-10-2006, 03:43 AM

"I think, in the case of large-scale crimes that show hatred toward an entire group of people, that an apology is fitting. Because these types of crimes are directed not at a single person but an entire group, the feeling of being hated that the victims experienced is passed onto future generations"

I can see what your saying. I think its not so much the fact that an apology might be given that makes me angy so much as the bagage and often the nature or wording of the apologies. Even more iratating is the fact that people demand apologies from the Church and make the Church out to be the bad guy and themselves to be the eternal victim.

Ryan

13-10-2006, 03:56 AM

During the Russian civil war, the White army was certainly responsible for a number of pogroms. Of course most of the factions were commiting atrocities of one sort or another.

Irene

13-10-2006, 05:17 AM

I recently watched a documentary on the Spanish Inquisition, thinking, "how stupid were these "Christians", forcing people to convert and then wondering why they kept up their Jewish religious rituals in secret". Having no idea that we had shameful acts in our past as well.

If you could have designed anything to purposely make people want to hate a religion then persecution and forced conversions, doing evil in the name of religion is perfect. It is annoying, it is so frustrating. But it is no good thinking about "but the Jews did this and the Muslims did that" etc.... All the more we should be following the opposite course, the correct course, showing love to people who don't know love. Kindness in a world that sometimes seems completely cruel.

I don't know anything about the Amish people, but their recent acts of forgiveness were inspiring, truly Christian, from what I saw on the news.

There have been cases of Orthodox Christians committing violence against Jewish civilians on occasion.** The progroms. Generally they occurred when revolutionary’s would attack a czar or government official and the local population would become enraged and they would go to a Jewish area and riot or whatnot.***

Stirring up anger and revenge, must have been very sweet to the evil one. :(

** Just as instances of Jews attacking or persecuting Christians also takes place. Just as feelings of anti christianism have existed in Jewish communities ( the scribes and Pharisees being a good example ).

*** Because of the perception that Jews were disproportionaly involved in revolutionary movements ( often true ) the people would target the Jews and unfortunatly inoccent people would get hurt. Of course the fact that a jewish person does something wrong doesnt give anyone the right to randomly attack innocent jewish people.

Well not for Christians who should be turning the other cheek.

Peter Farrington

13-10-2006, 12:55 PM

I am not sure that I can consider there is any excuse at any time for anti-semitism among Christians. Perhaps some political objection to aspects of Israeli policy but never anti-semitism.

If a Jewish community did ever harbour anti-Christian sentiments then surely the Christian response is love and kindness, never riot, rape and pillage.

Unfortunately Orthodoxy is not immune from the atrocities that other Christian communities have committed. We should repent as far as is within our personal scope and certainly not justify any such violence.

Peter

Scott Pierson

13-10-2006, 01:52 PM

Scott Pierson

13-10-2006, 01:54 PM

I am not sure that I can consider there is any excuse at any time for anti-semitism among Christians.

Nor for anti Christianism among Jews. But I guess being Christians we need to worry about our own actions first and foremost.

Peter Farrington

13-10-2006, 02:11 PM

While Christians have a history of anti-semitism I do not see that the Jews have any history after 70AD-ish of anti-Christianity. Or rather though they may not like Christians they have not been in a position to do anything about it.

'Christians' have routinely abused Jews and treated them terribly. Personally I think that they have plenty of justification for anti-Christianism.

We need to show that we have changed.

Peter

Irene

13-10-2006, 03:10 PM

There is a lecture/essay entitled "THE JEWISH QUESTION IN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH" "ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH." in four parts by Gregory Benevitch who says in part....

"Being a Jew myself I see no other way for me to be reconciled with God than to be an Orthodox Christian, which does not mean of cause that I allow any attempt to accuse Jews of killing Christ. I repeat once more: it is one thing to say with our Holy Fathers: Jews killed Christ, it is another thing to say that they are guilty. The one statement is true, the another - false, if only we believe that Christ is God."

****************
and also on anti-semantic comments by Church Fathers.........

"Since we believe that saints, convicting somebody, hated the sin and the devil, not the sinners, we may apply their words when the same sin is committed today. It is precisely on the ground of dispassionate character of the Fathers' words that their truth does not vanish with time."

**************

Russia, communism and the rejection of Christ.......

".......... the greatest wound in Russian history is Communism. And the fact is, many Jews played an active role in the Revolution. I clearly remember that as recently as ten years ago, my Jewish relatives proudly declared that the Russian Revolution was created by Jews. Of course, that is an exaggeration, but we must have it in mind that if the Jews themselves were(and are) saying such things, it is not surprising that some Russian Orthodox would say the same thing."

"We must also take into account the fact that the Communist Revolution was atheistic - that it was not only opposed to the bourgeoisie, but to the Church as well. Moreover, millions of those who were killed in the labour camps during the Russian Revolution were Christians(though not all of them, of course). Russian clergymen and monks were the first martyrs in the atheistic revolution. Already in the late thirties and especially after the war the situation radically changed and Jews themselves became the victims of Stalin's camps. But immediately after the revolution emancipated Jews, Jews who abandoned their own tradition, were the most valuable agents in the Communist attempts to destroy the Church. Fr. Alexander Men (jewish convert to Orthodoxy)once said: "When a Jew betrays his dedication to God he betrays himself and easily finds himself in the power of dark forces. Being chosen is a great and terrible responsibility.(Vestnik RHD 117, 1976 p 113).""

"As for Judaism, it rejects Christ who has already come, it does not acknowledge Him, which means, that it does not believe in Him. This is something different from the faith of the righteous of the Old Testament. Now, since Judaism has rejected Christ, it has closed the way to God for the Jewish people which adhere to this religion. Nevertheless, being a religion, it was obliged to lead to some god. And being the religion of the Absolute God, it was obliged to lead to the Absolute God, to the only true one. However, this god could not be true God of the Jewish faith (before Christ). He was something else, an absolutely false god created within the Judaism."

"....... in the New Testament, we find ......... Christ praying to his Father to forgive his killers. How can we still speak about the guilt of the killers of Christ, if he himself has forgiven them?"

"Moreover, such Orthodox Fathers as St.Maximus the Confessor teach that Christ has voluntary chosen his Cross and has been crucified to save those who has killed him, as well as all humanity."

*********

Jewish converts to Orthodox Christianity...........

"But what is really interesting: the Orthodox Fathers' attitude towards Jews does not at all frighten those Jews who become Orthodox Christians in Russia, does not prevent them from becoming Christians. Yes, being a Jew one cannot be pleased by these words of the Christian Fathers, but who ever said and when was it ever said that Christianity was established to bring us pleasure. Christianity does bring us pleasure, but a spiritual one, nevertheless, it demands from us something: to hate one's "soul in this world"(Jn.12.25), which is not a pleasant exercise."

"The Russian Orthodox Church should teach her members that ........ We have no right to blame any nation, any race. Our enemies are not flesh and blood, but the evil spirits. It is not only the "Western world" which lies in evil. "Russian world", lies in evil either. Or, better, as our Church teaches, the whole world, "world" as such lies in evil. Yet, she teaches that Christ has vanquished the world."

"There is only one place for each nation, for each race where it may find peace, where it may become itself, where it may be cured. This place is the Church, the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, God's beloved Israel. If only one man from some race comes to the Church, it means that all his race comes to the Church, being in him. For our nation (or race) is in us. Only in the Church we can be cured from the painful divisions of our humanity, these divisions between nations and races which are described in the story about the tower of Babylon. It is only the one Catholic Apostolic Church, where the event of Pentecost, in which every nation and race is called to participate in God's Covenant, has beeen never stopped since the time of the Apostles."

The full essay can be read here if you are interested. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/jewish_3.html)

Kris

13-10-2006, 07:32 PM

I had not realized that the Orthodox Church and its people had participated in persecution of Jews. I had not realized either that anti-semitism had been strong among Orthodox people. I know this can be a delicate topic, but have parts of the Orthodox Church carried feelings of anti-semitism?

Hi,

The Church Herself has never been, and cannot ever be, anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is a sin; the Church, as the Body of Christ, cannot sin.

Many Church Fathers said things that might be anti-Judaism (just as they criticise the pagans, Muslims, etc.), but I have yet to see any instance of anti-Semtitism.

However, no individual within the Church is sinless or infallible, and there have been many an anti-Semite within the Church. The Slavic world has for a long time been extremely anti-Semtitic; even at the time when most of its inhabitans were Orthodox Christians. Hence the enormous amount of Jewish emmigrants fleeing to Israel; not to mention the large Jewish support (and leadership) for the Communist Revolution.

It's a clear sign that humanity (Jews included) are still inperfect and fallen; very much in need of Christ.

In XC,
Kris

Scott Pierson

14-10-2006, 12:09 AM

The Slavic world has for a long time been extremely anti-Semtitic; even at the time when most of its inhabitans were Orthodox Christians. Hence the enormous amount of Jewish emmigrants fleeing to Israel; not to mention the large Jewish support (and leadership) for the Communist Revolution.

Many people try to use that as an excuse for the Jews* who worked to destroy Holy Russia.. that they were just innocent sufferers of the evil of anti Semitism and couldn’t help but embrace satanic revolutionary (or I guess as the liberals would say "noble and enlightened" ) ideologies.. I don’t buy that though.

Its strange when Orthodox take that view though. Its like they automatically hold their own people to be in the wrong and the followers of an opposed religion (the religion of the Pharisees) to be the innocent ones. Many people have a real guilt problem due to media brainwashing.

As for the Slavic world being "anti Semitic" I cant agree with that. Anti talmudic Judaism sure but I don’t think any specifically racial hatred of Jews was ever any sort of majority view. The educational / media establishment in the west loves slandering traditional cultures especially ones that dare to have an Orthodox monarchy. If people find out that Russia was not as evil as they lead on they might start to question the superiority of democracy and secularism and they cant let that happen.

I really recomend the book " The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy" by Matthew Raphael. It has some good information on this topic. It really opened my eyes to a lot of things.

*I'm sure many of the Jewish converts to Orthodoxy supported the Tsar and even gave their life for Holy Russia. I'm talking specifically about the followers of Talmudic Judaism and atheistic Jews.

John Charmley

15-10-2006, 09:49 PM

I get a little worried at times. It was the Tsarist secret police which forged the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; it was Russian pogroms which drove waves of Jews to Europe and America in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. It was common practice in Athens on Good Friday in the 19th century to attack Jewish premises after the Liturgy had finished. The people who did these things called themselves Orthodox Christians. Of course the Church was not anti-semitic, but nor is there much of a record in the 19th century of its Greek or Russian branches doing much to restrain the anti-semites.

Equally worrying is what strikes me as euphemistic language about the Jewish involvement in the Russian revolution, and excuses such as it was 'anti-Judaism' not anti-semitism; just what might the difference be? Lenin was not a Jew, and Stalin had attended a seminary, whilst the vast majority of Bolsheviks had been brought up in Holy Mother Russia where the Church played such a predominant role; so quite what point is being made in singling out a few Jewish people, I should like to know?

To deny that there has been an unpleasant undertone of anti-semitism in old Russia and old Greece, as in Romania, Hungary, France, Germany, Poland, and even Great Britain, does no service to us as Christians. We can chop logic and we can try to score points, but if you look at something like Bill Rubinstein's book
http://www.amazon.com/Genocide-William-D-Rubinstein/dp/0582506018

you'll get a better and more balanced picture. And yes, before anyone asks, he is Jewish - would that be an issue for anyone?

Its strange when Orthodox take that view though. Its like they automatically hold their own people to be in the wrong and the followers of an opposed religion (the religion of the Pharisees) to be the innocent ones. Many people have a real guilt problem due to media brainwashing.

This is not a matter of holding Orthodox people to be automatically wrong, nor of 'media brainwashing', it is a matter of historical record. As Christians we have sinned, and if we have repented, we should be honest about the history of Christian anti-semitism, not try to make excuses for it.

To say, 'the Church did not condone it' is to beg the question of what the Church is. There are too many examples of individual local anti-semitism to make such an argument anything more than an excuse.

By all means bury our heads in the excuses our traditions offer, and we can join those Turks who deny they slaughtered Orthodox Christians, and those neo-Nazis who argue about the size of the gas chambers and the number of the slain, and those Britons who argue they did not invent concentration camps, or those Americans who can't quite bring themselves to explain what happened to the Cherokee, and argue that slavery wasn't all that bad. Yes, they all use a familiar arsenal of arguments - but I should not wish Christians to be with them.

No one is saying that every Orthodox Christian in Russia was anti-semitic, just that there were so many and so severe pogroms that Jews fled in their tens of thousands. Are we supposed to believe that the Tsar and the Church hierarchy were unaware of these things - or that their condemnation of them have been conveniently forgotten by historians?

No, it would be more fitting before God and the memory of the slaughtered to bow our heads and be silent - except for our prayers for the souls of the departed.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

15-10-2006, 09:53 PM

o quite what point is being made in singling out a few Jewish people, I should like to know?

The same reason for single out "Christians" for various evil such as the progroms.

Peter Farrington

15-10-2006, 11:57 PM

Hi Scott

Are you saying that Christians are not responsible for a great deal of violence over the years? Not least Eastern Orthodox, as well as Anglicans and Roman Catholics?

I am not sure why you are so hesitant to condemn the pogroms and other anti-semitic actions of Christians over the years? I think I have misunderstood something along the way.

Are you saying that you think that in some way they were justified?

Peter

John Charmley

16-10-2006, 01:14 AM

The same reason for single out "Christians" for various evil such as the progroms.

Dear Scott,

An eye for an eye was not what Our Lord taught us, nor is it what the Church preaches.

Whilst history is disfigured by some ghastly examples of man's inhumanity to man, the nature of what happened to the Jews of Europe between 1940 and 1945 stands out for its barbarity; that is one of the reasons it behoves all of us to be very careful in our discussions of it. I am unaware of Jews treating Christians in the manner the Nazis treated them. Nor can I find record of Jewish pogroms against the Orthodox.

But, as I say, that is not why it is distasteful to logic chop on this topic. Christ calls us to repentance, and even if it were the case that one could compile some ghastly equation which revealed that Christians and Jews were equally guilty of crimes against each other, such a calculus would be irrelevant as well as wrong. Saying 'they did it to us too', is not a Christian way of proceeding.

What is the problem here? Why the difficulty in admitting the crimes committed by those calling themselves Christians? That puts anyone who does it on a par with those Turks who wanted to try the Nobel prize winning Turkish author, Orhan Pamuk, who would not go along with the line that there was no Armenian genocide.

Are we not called to the highest standards, and should we not admit when our co-religionists in the past sinned? Why the unwillingness to admit what is in the historical record? It isn't part of some anti-Christian conspiracy; indeed, it is the unwillingness to face up to such things that brings Christians into disrepute.

I cannot apologise for the sins of others, but I can admit them, and pray for those who have been slaughtered; just as I pray for those who did the slaughtering. But to equivocate here is, surely, not the Christian thing to do.

I sense Peter and I are treading on some sensitivities here, and I am sorry if anyone is offended; but I am even sorrier that anyone would be offended.

In Christ,

JOhn

Ryan

16-10-2006, 02:05 AM

I agree with Mr. Charmley. I think the logic that some use might be: anti-semitism is un-Christian, therefore those engaged in anti-semitism and pogroms were not real Christians, therefore it is not an internal or historical issue that Christians need to face in particular. Part of what makes people Christian isn't lack of sin, but the ability to repent of sin. In this same thread, I see recommendations of books that glorify the old Czarist order, which had a fair amount of Jewish blood on its hands. Anti-semitism cannot be extricated or walled off from the rest of church history. Did the church do everything in its power to stamp out this rampant evil in orthodox countries? I don't think it's enough that the church just didn't officially endorse anti-semitism.

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 02:58 AM

Anti Semitism is a form of racial prejudice against Semites of Israelite/Judhaite descent. Generally Semites are considered to be an inferior and evil race and Jews are considered to be evil regardless of the religious worldview they adhere to. For a Christian anti Semite a Jew who converted to Christianity would not be a “true” Christians and would still be considered evil. This view is often connected and originates from social Darwinism and evolutionary presuppositions and such.

Anti Judaism is simple opposition to modern Judaism ( Reformed, Orthodox, Conservative, Kabbalah, etc ) which is usually considered to be the continuation of the religion of the Pharisees** and thus be a fairly pernicious worldview. At times those holding to this view have certainly acted in improper ways by turning opposition to Judaism into violent opposition to every Jewish person ( I would say that it was usually only a minority of anti Judaistic Orthodox who supported rioting, burning and killing random Jews however.). Many people of Jewish descent who converted to Christianity or who were born into it have been strong anti Judaists. Certainly Christ himself while being of Jewish descent and honoring the true religion of the OT was strongly opposed to the Christ denying and pharisaical religion that gave birth to modern Judaism. He went so far as to call those who follow Christ denying forms of Judaism (as opposed to the religion of the OT ) sons of “ Their father the devil” and spoke of those “ Who call themselves Jews but are the synagogue of Satan” etc. Most of the so called “anti Semitic statements “ of the fathers are in reality simply anti Jewish (as in a certain religious worldview ) statements. In fact they often call (certain heretical ) gentile Christians “Judiazers” because the term points to a certain spiritual archetype or ever recurring form of spirituality I guess you could say.

It may be childish in a way to point this out (he started it lol) but, the Jews started the whole cycle of suspicion and violence that has taken place between the two communities. If you believe the accounts of the NT , the book of Acts, etc I think its pretty obvious. The reign of terror that apostate Jews had on Christian Jews and Gentiles, murders, stonings, persecutions, ratting them out to the Romans, inspiring the gentiles to attack them, etc. I really don’t think it all ended “70 ADish” either.

I didn’t make the claim that Stalin or Lenin was Jew or that the majority of Communist in Russia were Jews . I’m pointing out the historical fact that Communism was rampant among the Jewish community *** in Russia and that Jews played a disproportion role in the revolution (in comparison to population percentage). Using the same logic that blames “the Orthodox” for the pogroms one would also come to the conclusion that “ The Jewish community did all in its power to bring about a system that murdered millions of Orthodox”. One may say “ that wasn’t every Jew” or “ many Jews didn’t like revolution…etc” but cant one say the exact same things about Russian Orthodox and pogroms ( that not all Orthodox (or even the majority ) supported them ? Does that mean Jews need to apologize for Communism like Orthodox need to apologize for the pogroms ? Actually I would be willing to bet that if one traveled back in time and polled the honest opinions of the two communities asking the Orthodox if they support murdering, pillage, and rioting in Jewish areas and the Jews if they either support the Tsar or support revolution (communism/ socialism ) that very very few of the Orthodox would say “Yes its wonderful to murder Jews” but a very large percentage of the Jews would say “down with the Tsar , Communism now ! “. And among those Jews who renounced a violent commie revolution, a large percentage would support the same goals but through more peaceful means ( more moderate revolutionaries or maybe “democratic” liberals, etc ).

What I’m trying to say is that things are not as one sided as they are often portrayed by the western media and educational establishment. Its often portrayed as if the Jews have always been innocent suffers of unprovoked indignities by the Orthodox and that they have never done anything bad at all ( they just stoically suffer the evils of “anti Semitism” never provoking anything or fighting back ).. EO are just irrational and paranoid so they (without provocation) attack Jews (as are the representatives of nearly every other culture….). I don’t buy that. Sure some of them may have (at times) committed crimes against Jews and that is indefensible but history is not like they pretend it to be here in the modern west.

As an example of modern Jewish anti Christianism I would point to what Christians are suffering now in the state of Israel ( discriminatory laws, persecutions, destruction of Churchs, etc.. (especially the Palestinian Christians) .) http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crimes_against_christianity/index.htm )

I think the title of “anti Semitism” placed on Christians by Jews can often be a form of anti Christianism itself. This term is often used to attack the holy fathers (especially Saint Chrysostem). Look at what Abe Foxman (ADL ) says about Pat Robertson ( a guy who basically worships Israel, the Jews and Zionism, heck if he could vote in Israeli elections he would vote likud) for example. Its not enough to be a Zionist just being a Christian that supports evangelizing Jews is enough to make one an “anti Semite“ I guess. It used to be that an anti Semite was a person who hated Jews now it’s just a person whom a particular Jew hates.

I understand that what I’m saying is very controversial but I don’t think it should be. No one blinks an eye when someone points out the “evils” committed by Christians and the Church.. Well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are people so afraid to apply the same logic and criteria they apply to “the Church” to the Jewish community ? Personally I don’t think either side should attack each other using these things I do think its important though that people at least don’t look at history in a too unbalanced way though and as long as people are attacking the Church for “crimes against Jews” I will bring up Jewish crimes against Christianity so that it wont be a one sided “beat up on the Church “ fest. Just search online and see the hatred people have for the fathers calling them vile hate mongers and anti Semites and such.

** The Wikipedia entery on “Pharisees” states : “After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism — which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism, with the possible exception of the Karaites. The relationship between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism (exemplified by the Talmud) is so close that many do not distinguish between the two.”

*** As an example I point to the Encyclopedia Judaica printed in Israel by Jewish authors. :
"The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part In Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.""Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.." . "Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime"

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 03:18 AM

What is the problem here? Why the difficulty in admitting the crimes committed by those calling themselves Christians? That puts anyone who does it on a par with those Turks who wanted to try the Nobel prize winning Turkish author, Orhan Pamuk, who would not go along with the line that there was no Armenian genocide.

I dont , I believe that I have stated more then once that crimes have been commited by those calling themselves christians.

But, as I say, that is not why it is distasteful to logic chop on this topic. Christ calls us to repentance, and even if it were the case that one could compile some ghastly equation which revealed that Christians and Jews were equally guilty of crimes against each other, such a calculus would be irrelevant as well as wrong. Saying 'they did it to us too', is not a Christian way of proceeding.

I certainly understand your point here but I have a problem with pseudo history being used to bludgen the Church. Particularly the idea of Christians always being the bad guy in the Jewish Christian relationship throughout history. I dont say "they did it to us" to support attacks against Jews (or to say that attacks against Jews were moraly justified ) I do it simply to prove a historical point that invalidates (or at least mitigates) many of the arguments used against the Church. I also think there are some less then genuine motives for making some of the attacks on the Church and Russians in general that we often see. No I'm not Russian by the way.

Are we not called to the highest standards, and should we not admit when our co-religionists in the past sinned?

Yes we are. We should admit to any truthful sins , reject any exagerations and mention the things the attackers fail to mention when they attack us with the intent of destroying the Church or lowering its moral authority in the eyes of its believers (when they fail to mention important factors). On a personal level it may be ok to even admit to sins we have never commited but when it comes to the Church as an institution being attacked by unbelievers I dont think thats the way to go and I've never seen the fathers do so.. Just read some the apologetical works of the early fathers..

Peter Farrington

16-10-2006, 10:03 AM

I understand that what I’m saying is very controversial but I don’t think it should be. No one blinks an eye when someone points out the “evils” committed by Christians and the Church.. Well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are people so afraid to apply the same logic and criteria they apply to “the Church” to the Jewish community ?

Can other EO comment on this view?

Is it a normal EO position? I would be very disturbed if it were. It seems to me that the view "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" is the opposite of Christ's teaching to '"turn the other cheek".

I have found anti-Semitism (and I do think that anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism and is different to criticism of the state of Israel) within both EOxy before, so I would value knowing whether it is a position many here hold, and whether it is a position widely held in Russia (for instance).

I find in myself a too easy anti-Muslim spirit which I must repent of, so I am well aware that the creation of an 'other' who can be blamed for all the ills of the world is not so far from my own heart.

But I had not thought that anyone here would raise the persecution of the earliest Christians by the Jewish leaders as something that still had any meaning in terms of relations with the Jews. As John has said, I am sorry to offend anyone, but sorrier that anyone could be offended.

Peter

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 01:08 PM

I find in myself a too easy anti-Muslim spirit which I must repent of, so I am well aware that the creation of an 'other' who can be blamed for all the ills of the world is not so far from my own heart.

I dont believe I've claimed "the Jews" to be responsible for all the ills of the world. Though many people do put the church in that position (as the source of all/most the evil in the world) and use "anti semitism" as one of the proofs.

I'm not saying if a Jewish indvidual who has personal suffered unjustly at the hands of a Christian comes up to a Christian and says "you guys are bad!" we should produce a list of every wrong ever commited by a Jew against Christians (though the foes of the Church often do that in reverse) I'm just saying as a matter of historical record things should be set straight.

I find in myself a too easy anti-Muslim spirit which I must repent of, so I am well aware that the creation of an 'other' who can be blamed for all the ills of the world is not so far from my own heart.

Hate the sin (islam) but love the sinner (the person living under the false religous system). I can see how it might be easy to go beyond that though.

But I had not thought that anyone here would raise the persecution of the earliest Christians by the Jewish leaders as something that still had any meaning in terms of relations with the Jews

It was meaningful in terms of the point I was trying to prove. I'm not saying we should "feel angry" at todays Jewish community because of it or rub it in their face or anything.

I notice that people often label certain claims "anti semitic" rather then debate the veracity of the claim. Its a common problem now it doesnt matter if something is true or false only if its new and not old fasioned, liberal and not conservative, scientific not.. philo semitic not "anti semetic" etc..... What about true vs false ?

I have found anti-Semitism (and I do think that anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism and is different to criticism of the state of Israel) within both EOxy before, so I would value knowing whether it is a position many here hold, and whether it is a position widely held in Russia (for instance).

I dont hold to anti semitism. I think Semites can be good people just like anyone else. We are all human and thus made in the image and likeness of God. Simply pointing out certain historical realitys doesnt make on an "anti semitie" if it did then a lot of Jews (who point out the same things ) would be "anti semites".

and I do think that anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism

Is anti Islam and Anti Arab racism the same thing ? I would say no because one deals with a religion and the other with a race. Same thing with anti-judaism vs anti semitism. Do you consider Christ and the Church fathers (many of whom have been semites and very anti judaic.) to be anti semities ? There must be a lot of self hating people of Jewish descent out their if oposition to Judaism is anti semitism. Not all who follow modern Judaism are semites and not all semites of Jewish ancestery follow Judaism.

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 01:50 PM

Is anti Islam and Anti Arab racism the same thing ?
Or even better is anti zoroastrianism the same as anti Parsie (spelling ?) racism ? Zoroastrianism is pretty much isoloated to one race but it is a religious worldview that a member of the said race could embrace or reject.

Herman Blaydoe

16-10-2006, 01:56 PM

I have to go with John and Peter here. Aren't we told by many Fathers to consider ourselves the worst of sinners? Shouldn't we accept guilt for ourselves before assigning it to others? Seems like a pretty big "take-away" from my reading of the Fathers. Does this mean we have to "support" the modern state of Israel? Of course not! It simply means we need to be honest with ourselves and not dwell on past offenses against us. We should not concentrate on what "Jews" or even "Moslems" have done in the past, but rather put that energy into keeping ourselves from sinning each and every day. The evils of the past are not to be used as excuses for the present, and I am the chief of sinners. So yes, there is nothing wrong with singling ourselves out for blame first and foremost. And if we do violence to any human being, be they fellow Christian, Jew, or "Talmudic Jud[ist?]" we sin. Period. The pogroms were not against "Talmudic Judism", they were against Jews. It was human beings that suffered, not ideas or "teachings". It was wrong then, it would be wrong now. And in as much as representatives of the Holy Church participated or encouraged such behavior, they sinned and answer to God for their actions.

If we say the "Jews" killed Christ, remember that He died for OUR sins, WE are the new Israel, we are the new "Jews", the continuing people of God, and we bear the same "guilt" as anyone in the crowd railing for Christ's crucifixion. His Blood is also on our heads and our children. The evil that non-Christians do works for our salvation. The evil that Christians do damns us. Which is more important to eliminate?

Peter Farrington

16-10-2006, 03:15 PM

Amen, Herman. Amen.

I agree entirely with you and I am very glad to hear an EO say such things.

We have only to look at the powerful witness of the Amish community in Pennsylvania to see how I certainly would wish that I would respond to violence.

Indeed we only have to look at the witness of the martyrs in our own Orthodox communities to see how we should hope to act.

I do not see any scope at all for any justification of or hesitancy over complete condemnation and communal repentance for any and all acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Christ or by members of the Church.

Doesn't our attitude have to be that of St Stephen, the Proto-Martyr:

And they stoned Stephen, who was calling on God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

and of our Lord Himself:

And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.

and as it is written:

Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times? Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.

I am firmly of the opinion that when we are sinned against we should take responsibility for having failed to bear witness to Christ such that the ones persecuting us might have found Him as their own Lord and Saviour. We should at least, while being persecuted, if God give us grace, bear witness by our bearing in such persecution as the martyrs and witnesses have done.

Peter

Herman Blaydoe

16-10-2006, 03:16 PM

Why are people so afraid to apply the same logic and criteria they apply to “the Church” to the Jewish community ? Because there really is no Scriptural mandate to apply the same logic and criteria? In fact, I would say that Scripture and the Holy Fathers largely teach otherwise? That we should set a "higher" criteria for ourselves than for others? That we should consider ourselves the chief of sinners, and not be the first to cast stones? Christ our Lord certainly can point out others' sins, He WAS sinless, He was God. Do we have the same authority? I hesitate to accept it, speaking only for myself.

Is it a normal EO position? I would be very disturbed if it were. It seems to me that the view "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" is the opposite of Christ's teaching to '"turn the other cheek".
No, I do not believe what you have stated to be an authentic EO position, even if some professing to be Orthodox hold it. When I become "sinless", perhaps I will change my view, but if I take the Apostle Paul at his word, I don't think that will happen any time soon. I'll work on my own repentance before I worry about the repentance of the "Judaists".

Peter Farrington

16-10-2006, 03:35 PM

This whole thread is making me think about my response to those of other religions and even to other Christian traditions.

At present my Church doesn't have a relationship with the Orthodox Jewish community in town. Should we? I am sensing that we should. I have never visited their synagogue, nor have our Church members. Would it be a bad thing to ask to have a visit one day?

I am wondering if we must go beyond merely condemning all those who took part in various acts of violence and injustice against others and actually do something positive to prevent it happening again as far as is in our reach?

Have other local Orthodox developed such relationships? And with other Christian groups as well. We certainly want good relationships with the other Christians in our area and believe we have a gift to share, and do not need to fear contact with them will contaminate us. Rather it can only be a blessing to share freely what God has given freely.

Peter

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 05:35 PM

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say Its probably my fault I'm not the best communicator or that educated in being diplomatic and such ( I'm a high school drop out I'm lucky to even spell things right ). I'm not saying that we shouldn’t personally consider ourselves to be the worst of sinners, that we should dwell on the things Jews have committed against Christians and fume with hatred over it, or that we should expect Jews to rise to the same spiritual/moral level of Christians (I didn’t say that because that could be considered a back handed insult though couldn’t it ? ).

I'm just saying that people (certainly those who are not even Christians ) shouldn’t use different criteria when trying to place responsibility or blame on a community. If having x % of Christians supporting pogroms can lead one to say " Christians and the Church are to blame and bear responsibility for the pogroms" . Then logically one should also say that if x % (or more ) of Jewish people support something that is bad, blame and responsibility can be laid on the Jewish community. For some reason** or other people (not just Christians but Jews, and others who attack the Church) fail to do that. Why would someone who wasn’t even Christian hold the Church to a higher standard unless they are doing so with the intent of attack it and undermining its moral authority.

There is a difference between what an individual Christian should do when one points out their sins and what a Christian should do when one is trying to attack the Church and the Fathers with club called "anti Semitism".

If a Jewish person for example went to an Orthodox web page and started a thread called " Christian anti Semitism" and pointed out individual cases of Christians doing bad things to Jews (even if the person started the thread because he had axe to grind with Christianity) that would be considered acceptable. If however a Christian went to a Jewish message board and started a thread " Jewish anti Christianism" and pointed out historically accurate cases of Jews attacking Christians or upholding evil things then the same people would call that "unacceptable". Why don’t people give each other the same courtesy ? On average I would say that Christians are much less likely to air the Jewish communities dirty laundry then vice versa.

** that may be due to the things that many Jews suffered in the German concentration camps. I can see were that comes from but I don’t think it means that Christians should fail to provide the other side of the story in the Jewish / Christian relationship throughout history for the simple fact that its important that people know what really happened. Those who control the past (history) control the future.

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 05:44 PM

with singling ourselves out for blame first and foremost

I understand what you are saying I dont think there is anything wrong wtih being introspective and fighting evil starting with yourself etc. If only the people who attack the Church for its "anti semitism" would do the same but I never see them saying " Yes we have done such evils against the Christians at times" its always " The Christains have been so cruel to us without any provocation.. etc.."

Scott Pierson

16-10-2006, 05:50 PM

or the simple fact that its important that people know what really happened. Those who control the past (history) control the future.

oh yeah, and also because the attacks against the Church are also often used for political*, social, religious and economic gain.. Ie ulterior motives.

* for example saying " You can never again have Church and state work in symphony because that leads to the persecution of Jews, etc"

Ryan

16-10-2006, 05:57 PM

But are we just talking about a handful of bad apples in the church engaging in anti-semitism and pogroms? Then why did the church tolerate them? For me it looks like anti-semitism was a systemic problem in Russia, in the church and in the government. If one is going to take pride in the Russian orthodox tradition, and praise the virtues of Tsarism, then this anti-semitism remains a glaring problem that needs to be addressed and repented for. What Jews have or have not done throughout history is irrelevant in this situation.

Peter Farrington

17-10-2006, 12:53 AM

I would have to say that if a Jewish person came here and accused Christians of systemic anti-semitism then we should respond with repentance and humility.

I do not believe it would ever be appropriate for a Christian to visit a Jewish website and make an accusation there against any Jews for any anti-Christian behaviour.

We are called to be completely different.

Peter

James M.

17-10-2006, 02:08 AM

If I may intervene for a moment, the point of my thread was not to blame the (Orthodox) Church, but in fact it was a reference point I was looking for within Orthodoxy relative to the recant and apologies made by Pope John Paul II for persecutions once led by the Roman Catholic church. Yet as often happens, things seem to have gone in a different direction as all inquiries do and have turned up an interesting discussion all the same. Thank you all.

But to return to my original point, I found it of interest though again I have not looked again for a specifically citable reference, that a leading rabbi of the 15th century I believe had expunged the notion once supposedly written in Jewish texts - that the trial and execution of Christ was important and a good thing. Knowing what we do about our own church councils, it is understandable how this perspective could once have been written in terms of efforts within the rabbinal tradition to preserve their teachings....and also how tough it would be to remove these texts after centuries and centuries, and after enduring persecutions. The report I saw simply was that this text was expunged - not specifically recanted as wrong, but expunged from official documents. The Latin church has done the same on occassion I understand: expunged rather than recant. THis doesn't make the removal any easier, or change the circumstances. It still takes considerable courage to do, for surely the criticism from within one's own will always be hard at first.

To me, the prospect that the two events - the expunging of this text which would seem almost provocative to outsiders (Christians) together with an official pronouncement by the Orthodox patriarch that persecution of Jews was sinful (albeit specifically focused on Crete or Cyprus) seemed more than a coincidence. And yet, I also know as an amateur reader of history that sometimes seemingly related events may be completely independent and unrelated in regards to the documentable relationship between them. So I do not mean to suggest a quid pro quo, but that perhaps two reasonably inspired individuals doing what they could to lessen strife by their lights may have acted on their own, or through guidance from above. And I don't mean this to sound overly eccumenical or that I don't have an opinion, but that my opinion doesn't matter in circumstances where the actions may speak for themselves.

So the original post was sort of an inquiry into the facts - less than a call for apologies all-around. I remain curious about these events and their documentation.

I would agree that pogroms happened, and to the extent that unfaithful "protectors" of the "faithful" persecuted folks that apologies would be in order. This isn't new but something I think has already been done.....without regard to specific culpability. Need it be done again? Why count the cost? Sure, perhaps we should repeat it or need to repeat it until our fathers in the Faith may see their own lights within us. I mean, we can accept responsibility without detail: and there is the tradition that we have all crucified our Lord now, then and everyday in our own unworthiness. FWIW, in my view as a newcomer is that in many ways the Orthodox Church has suffered its own persecutions and holocausts...even to this day, and yet has or would maintain humility in its suffering. In this there is probably more of a common experience than many would suppose. What may differentiate those more true to their traditions is that in their humility they bear it joyfully. And there's the rub that is so much more difficult for all of us, and so easy for folks like me at ease in my chair in front of a screen to write than to live. What we would want, and what is or will be so often miss the mark.

Scott Pierson

17-10-2006, 03:13 AM

I do not believe it would ever be appropriate for a Christian to visit a Jewish website and make an accusation there against any Jews for any anti-Christian behaviour

The hypothetical person in question could be a non Christian who is pointing out cases of Jewish Anti Christianism then for the sake of the example (if the person being Christian would prevent them (morally) from doing so in your opinion). Its really not relevant to the point I'm making about people purposely using double standards in order to attack the Church .

Would you say that its always wrong for Christians to respond to what they consider to be misuses, exaggerations, etc of history ? Isn’t it important just for the sake of having a proper understanding of what actually took place to correct certain statements people often make in that regards? Christians better not write history books if that’s a problem …just leave history to those who portray the Church in a negative light.

Certainly when one is being attacked personally (for being immoral sinful or whatnot) then it can be an honorable thing to turn the other cheek and even accept blame for something one didn’t do (the story of the desert father who was accused of being the father of a child and supported the child with his work ... being an example ). When there is a concerted effort to attack the Church or the honor of the fathers I think we have a different responsibility and can not always answer the same way we would when attacked personally. Do you disagree with that ?

Just look at some of the things the fathers wrote regarding those who attack the church . I think what I said (while it may have had some sinful aspects arising from me venting frustration and not wording things in a completely sensitive way, etc ) was actually fairly tame compared to some of the things I've read from the fathers (who use personal attacks, attacks on peoples morality, etc ). I can post some examples if you doubt it.

I do not believe it would ever be appropriate for a Christian to visit a Jewish website and make an accusation there against any Jews for any anti-Christian behaviour.

We are called to be completely different.

Let me get this straight…

So a Christian is called to the highest moral standard which would prohibit him from mentioning any form of injustice committed against his people. The idea that one must remember the evils of the past in order to keep them from repeating isn’t really that morally sound from the highest moral standard (the Christian standard) and is acceptable only for those of a lesser moral calling (the Jews ) ? So when the Jews (who we cant really hold to a high standard) make mention of anti Semitism then that’s ok just remember that as Christians we are better then that so we cant mention Jewish anti Christianism. I think if I was a Jew I might find that insulting ;)

I understand that my posts have been far from perfect and that I may have said some things that have been insensitive and such but you have to admit that a double standard exists (not just among Christians who should hold themselves to higher standards but others using dishonest variable criteria for placing blame to make the Church the eternal bad guys in the Jewish Christian interaction throughout history) and that people with an axe to grind against the Church make use of the “anti Semitism “ thing. I think its painfully obvious that things like that take place. Maybe you think I shouldn’t mention this fact.. That’s ok you deserve your opinion but can you honestly say that its not a fact?

Scott Pierson

17-10-2006, 03:16 AM

If I may intervene for a moment, the point of my thread was not to blame the (Orthodox) Church,

I'm sorry. I did take your post in a totaly differnt direction. I didnt assume you were trying to blame Orthodox either . The post just brought to mind something that made me go off on a tangent.

Peter Farrington

17-10-2006, 08:41 AM

Isn’t it important just for the sake of having a proper understanding of what actually took place to correct certain statements people often make in that regards?

Hi Scott, yet you are unwilling to apply the same policy to the OO who wish you to correct certain statements. Does your idea only apply to the EO? or to Christians in general? If to Christians in general then why have you stated elsewhere that you will not allow any such correction to take place with regard to the OO?

So a Christian is called to the highest moral standard which would prohibit him from mentioning any form of injustice committed against his people.

Pretty much so. That is Christianity surely? The point was about whether a Christian should go to a Jewish website and make complaints. I don't think a Christian should. If a Jew asked on a Christian website if there were events in the past that might be considered as anti-Christian then that would be different. But we are talking about seeking out Jews to complain about past activities.

I understand that my posts have been far from perfect and that I may have said some things that have been insensitive and such but you have to admit that a double standard exists (not just among Christians who should hold themselves to higher standards but others using dishonest variable criteria for placing blame to make the Church the eternal bad guys in the Jewish Christian interaction throughout history) and that people with an axe to grind against the Church make use of the “anti Semitism “ thing. I think its painfully obvious that things like that take place. Maybe you think I shouldn’t mention this fact.. That’s ok you deserve your opinion but can you honestly say that its not a fact?

But should we respond in kind? I don't think so. Surely if we lived better lives then the world would see our good deeds and praise our Heavenly Father. Surely if they could say 'see how they love one another' there would be less liklihood to dismiss the Church as irrelevant and even dangerous.

Let's not go around trying to find external enemies. We are called to love those who despitefully use us. Let us try harder to live better Christian lives, then we might find that others will wish to apologise to us for having treated us badly.

Best wishes

Peter

John Charmley

17-10-2006, 06:25 PM

Dear Peter/Scott

James writes:

I would agree that pogroms happened, and to the extent that unfaithful "protectors" of the "faithful" persecuted folks that apologies would be in order. This isn't new but something I think has already been done.....without regard to specific culpability. Need it be done again? Why count the cost? Sure, perhaps we should repeat it or need to repeat it until our fathers in the Faith may see their own lights within us. I mean, we can accept responsibility without detail

But it seems from some of the posts here that not everyone would accept this quite reasonable position; which would be why we need to repeat it.

No one would suggest that the Jews are the only people to have been persecuted, and even as we write, in the Middle East, our fellow Christians face discrimination and persecution from people who complain about our treatment of Islam in the west; a hard thing to swallow for many of us. But their wrong-doing does not excuse ours, and we should attend to the beam in our own eye first.

But the Jews are a special case for two reasons: the first is that their persecution is intimately tied up with Christianity. Stigmatized with blood-guilt by medieval Christians, they were indeed persecuted in an appalling manner. Their treatment in Spain in the 15th century was inexcusable; the same is true of the way they were treated in 13th century England; something similar might be written about the way they were treated in 5th century Alexandria. Then there is the long history of anti-semitism in Imperial Russia, as well as in post-Ottoman Greece. In every instance, the persecution came because of the way the Jews were perceived by Christians. For us to say that because the way these people behaved was unChristian, they were not real Christians, is right up there with the old Communist excuse that Lenin and Stalin weren't proper Communists. The utility of such statements escapes me, since I cannot imagine that they convince anyone who does not need to be convinced; to objective observers (if such there be) they sound like weasel-words. We should simply have the courage, humility, and honesty, to admit the part our Faith has played in demonising the Jews, and make sure we do not do it - ever.

Secondly, the fate of the Jews of Europe between 1939 and 1945 was uniquely horrendous in modern times. For a whole race to be singled out for extermination because of that factor, and for the extermination to be carried out as thoroughly as it was, is something for all of us to ponder. Germany has a long history of culture and of Christianity, and yet it fell into the hands of the Godless Nazis, and men and women who called themselves Christians, connived at the holocaust.

Simple humanity and courtesy should make all of us careful about the language we use here. It is no use saying one isn't very diplomatic; when one is in Church one does not use the same language as one does outside. Similarly, when one is in the presence of something that bears so heavily on some of our fellow human beings, we should watch our tongues.

Whether we like it or not, if we are happy to be known as Christians, then others will take what we say and do as being in some way 'Christian'; we can decline this honour as much as we want, but some will say, after listening to us, or after reading our words: 'if that is what Christians are like, leave me out.'

Here, on this site, we do, on the whole, write as Christians for Christians, but we should not forget the responsibility this puts upon us; many of our readers may not be Christian, or they may look here for signs of how Christians comport themselves.

Is it too pious-sounding to ask us all to bear that in mind, especially on this most sensitive of subjects. We are called to the highest of standards by Our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who for our salvation became man, was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified for our sake. As we stand in awe at Him doing this for sinners such as we are, we should bear in mind that poor and unworthy though we be, we are part of the body of Christ.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

18-10-2006, 12:07 AM

So a Christian is called to the highest moral standard which would prohibit him from mentioning any form of injustice committed against his people.

Pretty much so. That is Christianity surely? The point was about whether a Christian should go to a Jewish website and make complaints. I don't think a Christian should. If a Jew asked on a Christian website if there were events in the past that might be considered as anti-Christian then that would be different. But we are talking about seeking out Jews to complain about past activities.

You seem to by saying that a certain Christian ethical ideal exists that should prevent Christians from remembering or makeing refrence to wrongs commited against their people. Does this standard apply to all Christians? If a Jew who converted to Christitianity started making refrence to "slavic anti semitism" would that person be failing to live up to that ideal ? Or maybe that standard is only aplicable to Christians of slavic, greek or other gentile backgrounds and not to those who are from a jewish back ground. Therefore its wrong for gentile Christians to speak of Jewish slavophobia (for example) but right for Christians of Jewish ancestory to talk about Slavic anti Semitism?

When can a person make mention of attrocitys and evils commited against a certain people? is it only when they dont belong to the group it happend to (unless they are Jews and therefore have a special exemption to the normal rule) ?

I dont see the value in allowing people to misrepresent history without at least saying "hey thats not the whole story " . I think as Christians we have a duty to set the record straight when people are using real atrocitys but then adding exagerations, half truths, etc to make the church appear as if it has always been the evil brother in Jewish Christian relation.

I can produce page after page of evidence showing that the Jewish community is not always the poor innocent suffering partner in the Christian Jewish relationship throughout history and that they have more then their fair shair of anti christian feelings and acts of violence and opression against Christians.

Again I am not denying that Christians have done bad things, had bad thoughts about and commited atrocitys on Jewish people. I'm not saying those things are good or that apologizing for them would be a bad thing. I'm not even saying that I'm horrible opposed to one saying that the Church bears some responsiblity for not stoping certain attacks from taking place. I'm just worried about the falsification of history that makes things look so one sided. And , unfortunatly , nearly every time I see "Christian anti semiitism" discussed the exagerations and half truths start flying and people make painfully obvious attempts to attack the honor and moral authority of the Church.. Just watch a special on anti semitism on the History Channel, or on the news or look at the high school history books etc.

It seems that people keep comparing personal attacks with attacks on the honor of the Church, the fathers or the memory of the great Christian empires ( Russia, Byzantium etc.. and yes i know they are not perfect there is no utopia on earth but they are the best examples of human culture, govt, etc that we have yet seen on this earth..) there is a real differnce though. Look at how the fathers responded when individuals and groups attacked the Church . Just look at the things written in the apologetic material we have passed down to us. The fathers didnt pull any punchs in that regard.. they called the foes of the Church "insane", "morally degenerate", etc... It would be a good an honerable thing for a person to calmly and joyously accept personal slander but when people are attacking the fathers or the church and their attacks are starting to influence the minds even of Christians and our children and such then it would be dishonerable to refrain from setting the record straight.

So often I see the "anti semitic" label used against Orthodox and other Christians for obvious politcal and religious reasons by people who have an ax to grind with the Church and consider it the best weapon to use. Or by people who have an interest in perserving the capitalist democratic system (they say things like "see seperation of Church and state is need because when it doesnt exist people kill the jews.." or " Christians are mean to Jews.. therefore you need to support Democracy and the state of Israel oh yeah and give a donation to ADL). Its simmilar to people who use the sex scandels against the catholic church (who themselves are not even catholic , dont have kids, and could more then likely care less about the whole thing anyway and would in fact probably like it to hapen more often so they could have some more ammo to use against them lol !) even after they have apologized, worked to change things for the better , etc.

Peter Farrington

18-10-2006, 08:40 AM

I dont see the value in allowing people to misrepresent history without at least saying "hey thats not the whole story " .

Dear Scott

I agree with you about this in some contexts. Lets see if we can both bear it in mind in discussions generally on this forum.

But I still don't see the value generally in raising the issue of any Jewish violence against Christians. They are not Christians. There has been constant violence perpetrated by Muslims against Christians yet I would also not think it fruitful to go to a Muslim forum and try to seek redress.

Christians surely have another power at work in them altogether.

People who believe the Church is bad will probably believe it is bad even if we parade all manner of evils perpetrated against us. But if they see that we are really loving and forgiving then maybe that will make a difference?

Peter

Scott Pierson

18-10-2006, 01:03 PM

People who believe the Church is bad will probably believe it is bad even if we parade all manner of evils perpetrated against us. But if they see that we are really loving and forgiving then maybe that will make a difference?

The part about people still believing the Church is bad is probably true. I can see the wisdom in the response your calling for too.

There has to be a way of doing both though. Setting history straight in an as sensitive and loving manner as possible while still showing that we dont hold past grudges against people. I'm sure I'm not the person to do it but no one else seems to ever mention these things.

John Charmley

18-10-2006, 08:06 PM

The part about people still believing the Church is bad is probably true. I can see the wisdom in the response your calling for too.

There has to be a way of doing both though. Setting history straight in an as sensitive and loving manner as possible while still showing that we dont hold past grudges against people. I'm sure I'm not the person to do it but no one else seems to ever mention these things.

Dear Scott,

You are spot on, especially the bit about being 'sensitive and loving', and this is where, obviously, the tone of voice one writes in matters.

You have a very honest and open style, and as you say, you like to say it as it is, and that sometimes means you will fire from the hip a little. Those of us who read your posts here know this, and we know where you are coming from, and that what we get when we read a Scott post is straight from your good heart. It only gets problematic when, on very sensitive issue like this, your outspoken manner could be mistaken for something else by those who have not troubled themselves with getting to know you on this site.

Of course, to those of us who have so troubled, we can see your robustness as being 'very Scott', and we can see past the occasional verbal infelicities to the truth that you are seeing; but on this, of all issues, we all have to exercise extreme caution in making sure that no one could accuse anyone on this site of anti-semitism.

You are, of course, right to say we must defend our own position robustly, and you always do; but it is better when this does not give even a hint of anything that could be misread. On this, of all issues, if it could be misread by the enemies of the Faith, it will be; we know that.

In Christ,

John

Jennifer

20-10-2006, 06:56 AM

Scott wrote:

There has to be a way of doing both though. Setting history straight in an as sensitive and loving manner as possible while still showing that we dont hold past grudges against people.

Dear Scott,

I think that the Church has already developed a way to do this. We set history straight when we venerate the martyrs and persecuted saints, by displaying their icons and reading about their lives in church and in our homes. There are also many books that have been written by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians that tell about Christian martyrs.

We, as Christians, show that we don't hold grudges against people for wrongs done in the past by treating them kindly. When we tell the stories of persecuted Christians, we do not intend to foster anger towards their attackers or to justify wrongs we have done in the past, but to foster faith and hope in our God whom they died confessing.

Perhaps, this is one way that the Church begins to do what you have described above.

Jennifer

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2006, 02:50 PM

Jennifer wrote:

We set history straight when we venerate the martyrs and persecuted saints, by displaying their icons and reading about their lives in church and in our homes. There are also many books that have been written by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians that tell about Christian martyrs.

There is something very important in this thought.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Scott Pierson

21-10-2006, 07:00 PM

We set history straight when we venerate the martyrs and persecuted saints, by displaying their icons and reading about their lives in church and in our homes.

Thats a good point. The creation of Icons and the veneration of Martyrs and such is probably the most effective over the long run simply because such Icons and traditions will be passed on for hundreds or even thousands of years... well past the time in which a society may be falsifying history in order to be PC. Not to mention the spiritual power that arises from doing so.

There are also many books that have been written by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians that tell about Christian martyrs.

When it comes to the issue of the history books though , I think people are not doing all that is required to prove that Christians are not always the "evil younger brother" in the jewish Christians interaction throughout history. Certainly a few people are willing to risk their reputation, jobs, etc in order to discuss unpopular truths but a lot of people keep things hush hush or if they do make mention its only in passing so as not to appear to be "dwelling on the issue" and thus be an "anti semite".

Andrew

21-10-2006, 07:59 PM

It seems that anti-semitism is a word used to stifle debate in the modern world. It is not racist or anti-semitic to criticize and oppose Judaism, and to defend misrepresentations of Orthodox history and doctrine, or to uncover facts that some people would rather forget. We must be open to truth, and be open to forgive. The Church has never preached racial hatred towards Jews, but proclaims the truth - Judaism is the religion of the Pharisees. It is a rejection of Christ. The state of Israel is not the true Israel, the Church is Israel. There are instances of Jewish persecution of Christians in the state of Israel, and of Church desecrations, and other horrible things. There are even persecutions of traditional Rabbinic Jews in Israel, as you can see in the numerous videos on the internet of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis getting beat up by angry mobs. This does not mean we should go out and hate on people who bear the image of Our Lord... no, this is an opportunity to grow in love and stand for the Truth, Christ himself.

It is one thing to hate Jews - this is horrible, satanic, and totally opposed to Christ. It is a totally different thing to oppose the state of Israel/wish for reforms/sympathize with the captive Arabs, to be willing to criticize Judaism in light of the true Revelation, and to be open to hard truths. I think the majority of Orthodox in Eastern Europe, and the majority of Western Europeans take this stance... it's a much more acceptable stance than in America, where much criticism of Judaism and Israel is cast down as "anti-semitism."

I don't think anti-semitism is really a good word to use. Semites include Arabs, and many Muslims who are Semites are accused of this... many people labelled as "anti-semites" by Jews are more correctly anti-Zionists. They don't hate Jews, but they oppose the state of Israel and the ideology behind Zionism. There are people who are anti-JudaISM, as in opposed to the religion itself, the Rabbinic religion, a falling away from the true Temple worship that is found only in Christ, in the Church. This includes our Holy Fathers. And then there are Jew haters, who are racists, and usually because of this will hate Judaism itself, and hate the state of Israel, and hate pretty much anything having to do with Jews. This is an irrational sort of bigotry that is born of the passions, and we as the Church must use the love of Our Lord to allow the True Peace to reign in the hearts of these people caught in the passions, and we must pray for the modern descendents of the Pharisees to come back to the true faith, to the true nation of Israel, to the Orthodox Church.

Scott Pierson

21-10-2006, 10:02 PM

Kris

21-10-2006, 11:28 PM

It is one thing to hate Jews - this is horrible, satanic, and totally opposed to Christ. It is a totally different thing to oppose the state of Israel/wish for reforms/sympathize with the captive Arabs, to be willing to criticize Judaism in light of the true Revelation, and to be open to hard truths. I think the majority of Orthodox in Eastern Europe, and the majority of Western Europeans take this stance... it's a much more acceptable stance than in America, where much criticism of Judaism and Israel is cast down as "anti-semitism."

Hi,

I would say that the mainstream view among Western Europeans is best described as pro-Palestinian. But I think most people (unless they're Muslims, in which case its expected) who were openly anti-Zionist would also be dismissed as anti-Semitic. And I don't think anyone would ever dare criticise Judaism (unless, again, you're Muslim) for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.

I agree with the general theme of your post though. Anti-Zionism is a perfectly valid political stance which does not in any way suggest anti-Semitism. As for anti-Judaism: we as Christians believe our faith to be the Truth, and we oppose any religion that disagrees with it, whether it be Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. Again, it does not pre-suppose any hatred towards any ethnic group; it is merely an affirmation of the Truth of Christianity.

In XC,
Kris

John Charmley

21-10-2006, 11:37 PM

Andrew,

I couldnt agree more. The fathers take a beating lately as sources of "hatred and anti semitism..." and its just not accurate to label them that way. People even claim that our Lord Jesus Christ, Sts Peter and Paul, etc are guilty of spreading anti semitic hatred .

Dear Scott,

Reminding us that the enemies of the Church will use every weapon they can, fairly and unfairly against us is, of course, spot on, but we must remain aware of the fact that whatever we mean by quibbling about the use of the word 'anti-semitic', such quibbles are the stock in trade of those who deny the Holocaust; and we ought to be clear that that is not our position, precisely because our enemies will distort our views if we are not clear in their expression.

That some of the Fathers took a position towards the Jews which we would now deplore is true. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the 'seal of the Fathers', led a counter-attack on the Jews of Alexandria who had attacked some of his flock. This has led some historians to say he was anti-semitic, which is nonsense. St. Cyril was fighting back against attacks on Christians. His methods were not ones we should commend now, but he was not living in our times, but in fifth century Alexandria, and he used the methods of his time. We, as Christians, can acknowledge that we would not now employ his methods, but we do not have to accede to allegations of anti-semitism.

It is precisely because there are many occasions upon which we might want to argue in this mode, that we ought to acknowledge anti-semitism when we encounter it. The Russian pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were anti-semitic, and it does no one any good to equivocate on this.

Of course supporters of Israel will use the term 'anti-semite' as a political weapon, but as Andrew says, we can recognise that for what it is.

A nuanced language and balanced tone will help us to make our defence when we need to; so will the admission of past faults and the example of our present behaviour.

In Christ,

John

Alex Michael Rusanen

31-07-2008, 03:06 PM

Misha

31-07-2008, 05:53 PM

Some weeks ago fanatic Jews set fire to hundrends of New Testaments
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/20/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-New-Testament-Burned.php
The fact is that zionists are racists,war criminals similar to nazis and hate christians,especially orthodox.
We should be aware of their intentions but love and forgive them as our Lord taught us.
We have not any alternative but LOVE for "enemies" if we want to see God's prosopon.

Effie Ganatsios

31-07-2008, 08:20 PM

Kosta

01-08-2008, 01:01 AM

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church was instrumental in saving the jewish populace of its country. The only nation that ended the war with more jews than it began.

The source of anti-semitism in the western culture pre-dates christianity. When the Romans rebuilt Jerusalem as a roman ciry re-naming it Aurelia, forbade jews from moving there but allowed christians. This is because christians distanced themselves from the jews after their uprising in Cyprus (where jews were expelled but christianity flourished), the jews committed major atrocities against the natives. This uprising also occured in Cyrene, and parts of Egypt and their targets werent limited to the roman army, there were other rebellions across the empire at various times involving jewing uprisings. Contemporary roman authors and poets during this era branded the jews a barbaric bloodthirsty race incapable of civility.

Jewish historians in search for the root of "anti-semitism" intentionally leave out this crucial history. The christians many of which were gentiles wanted nothing to do with the jews any longer.
Here is a summary of that uprising and the atrocities inflicted by the jews to non-jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War

Ryan

01-08-2008, 07:03 AM

Chiune Sugihara was a convert to Orthodoxy, though I'm not sure if he remained in the Church after his Belorussian wife divorced him.

Andrew

01-08-2008, 03:59 PM

I am chocked by the ignorance of some regarding the anti-semitism in our Church, and I am quite ashemed of admitting that there is still active anti-semitism in our Church. I know of a few parishes where the anti-semitic discussions are in vogue at the coffee-table, and not even to mention some of my syrian orthodox friends of whom one said that the holocaust was justifieable because they killed Christ. This fact are horrible!

BUT, we must not forget the orthodox who have helped jews in modern times. The armenians, so I have heard, were quite active in hiding jews under persecution. Let us not forget abba Isidor, St. John of Kronstadt, and ofcourse, St. Mother Mary of Paris who suffered the same fate as six million jews.

Alot of these same people at the coffee table who dislike Jews on a personal (ie petty) level would probably be the same ones hiding them during Nazi persecution. It is possible to dislike other people because of personal passions, but rise above this and act in a positive manner. I know Greeks that don't like Jews personally, just like there are a lot of Black people that don't like Koreans and Vietnamese people, or what have you. This is more of a casual cultural dislike, not an abashed hatred. The notable passions of different ethnic groups rub strongly against other cultures - that is why there is personal tension, dislike of "those people," and such. But with Christ, we are called to get over it and love others.

Also, hyperbolic statements like that of your Syrian friends are somewhat part of Arab culture. The Holocaust was terrible, but you have to take statements like that sometimes with a grain of salt (I know what they said is insensitive, potentially racist, etc. etc. etc., but you have to get past "outrage" and just deal with people as they are). I am sure these friends of yours would not actually rat out Jews to the Nazis. I think there is a cultural difference between casual dislike of Jews and open hostility and wish for harm against them. The same can be said for Jewish culture... there is a notable dislike among some for the "goy," a feeling of intellectual superiority and sophistication over the yokels and country bumpkins, casual disregard for Christian culture, etc. This does not mean that these same people will actively persecute Christians. I am not defending these sentiments, but at the same to you sort of have to get used to it with dealing with others and learn to look past it if you are going to deal with people for where they are at.

Misha

01-08-2008, 07:47 PM

To His Brother Chrysanthos of Aitolia

My most sacred and beloved brother Lord Chrysanthos: .................................................. ............

I am now traveling through Paramythia and Margarite; I hope shortly, God willing, to come and see you. I also passed through our village and all our relatives and friends send their respect.
I greet you and the most holy bishop and I pray for all the brethren in Christ. Be well in body and soul. Ten thousand Christians love me and one hates me; a thousand Turks love me and one doesn't; thousands of Jews want my death and one doesn't.

Your brother,
Hieromonk Kosmas *
2 March 1779

*st Kosmas the Aetolian

"...my fellow Christians, if you wish God to forgive you of all your sins and to put you into paradise, let your nobility say three times for your enemies: "May God forgive and have mercy upon them."

This forgiveness, my brothers, has two properties: it illuminates and it burns completely. I told you to forgive your enemies for your own good."

St.Kosmas 4th teaching

Effie Ganatsios

02-08-2008, 12:38 PM

I was just re-reading the messages on this page and especially the message I posted. I wrote the word Jews when really I meant Greeks who are of the Jewish faith. I don't know whether in other countries this distinction is made, but here Greeks are Greeks first and then Christian or Jewish.

Another thing I should have mentioned was that Jewish fighters came from Israel (it wasn't Israel then so perhaps I should say Palestine which is the correct word) and fought with our resistance fighters against the Germans. This little known fact should not be forgotten. When we needed help, Palestinian Jews came to our country and helped us. Greeks have long memories, which is both good and bad. In this case it is good. Seeing what Israel has become, I sometimes wonder where these honourable Jews have disappeared to.

Our glorious Anzacs also helped Greece - something else that should not be forgotten. This is not pertinent to this discussion but I felt I should add it.

Effie

Kosta

03-08-2008, 02:36 AM

Chiune Sugihara was a convert to Orthodoxy, though I'm not sure if he remained in the Church after his Belorussian wife divorced him.

While i dont know for sure, I would say he remained Orthodox since he converted while in Harbin China before he ever married or had much contact with traditional Orthodox peoples (except for whatever russian influence may have existed in Harbin). Was Yukkiko his second wife then, I only know of his oriental wife.

Here is a bio and his heroism during ww2:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/sugihara.html

Alexander Ignatiev

14-11-2008, 11:39 PM

This issue has been of very great concern for me for many years, particularly since my days studying the Gospel of John at Georgetown University. We paid special attention to the use of the word "Jews" in translation, particularly with reference to the death of Christ.

As my professor pointed out, when we say that the Jews killed Christ, we have to understand that this does not refer to Jews killing Christ. Jew has a very specific meaning in modern English that we take for granted, that does not reflect the nation of people who were ruled by the exarchate of Herod and the Roman state of Palestine; it is the Judeans who kill Christ, not the Jews. But it is not even all the Judeans that kill Christ, since most of Christ's followers were Judeans.

The Judeans are distinguished from the Samaritans, historically, and even the Judeans had numerous political divisions; but in reading the Gospels, we can be sure that the Judean leadership enthusiastically, with the exception of Christ's disciples among them, embraced the crucifixion of Christ.

It is similarly mistaken to think of Moses's followers as Israelites, since the state of Israel had not yet come into being; or the sons of Abraham as Hebrews. Likewise, we would be mistaken to think that the Judeans are the same as what we in the modern world call Jews. Jew is not a national identity; it is a religious and cultural heritage, and it would of necessity encompass all semitic people who are of the twelve tribes, even those who were not part of the Judean nation at the time of Christ's crucifixion, which nation, incidentally, was wiped out by Titus in 70 AD.

When the Judeans crucified Christ, they rejected Christ, and gave up their inheritance as the chosen people of God. This is the significance of the Judeans killing Christ, not some sort of blood guilt upon the Jews. Let us remember that St. Paul was a great persecutor of Christians, and even he came to love Christ. In a very real sense, we are all at risk of being the Jews who killed Christ.

Robert Hegwood

24-12-2008, 10:18 PM

Here is a link to a four part essay on the Jewish question in the Orthodox church written a Russian Jew who converted to Orthodoxy. It has some very interesing perspectives.

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0443.htm

Kusanagi

26-12-2008, 08:54 PM

[QUOTE=Judeans killing Christ, not some sort of blood guilt upon the Jews. [/QUOTE]

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Matthew 27:25.

This is a guilt shared on all of them. You being a Russian Orthodox, have you read where St John Maximovitch says those that do not condemn the murder of the Tsar share the guilt of murdering him.
Something along those affects I think something similar can be applied here. Where the Jewish people though didn't physically get their hands dirty but allow others to do their work for them, makes them associates. Even in real life crime where even if you didnt take part in the actual crime you are seen as an associate and still given severe punishment.

Herman Blaydoe

26-12-2008, 10:10 PM

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Matthew 27:25.

This is a guilt shared on all of them. You being a Russian Orthodox, have you read where St John Maximovitch says those that do not condemn the murder of the Tsar share the guilt of murdering him.
Something along those affects I think something similar can be applied here. Where the Jewish people though didn't physically get their hands dirty but allow others to do their work for them, makes them associates. Even in real life crime where even if you didnt take part in the actual crime you are seen as an associate and still given severe punishment.

And doesn't that me even more guilty, even if I am not Jewish? Because they knew not what they were doing, yet I crucify Christ every time I sin and I know better. Do I not also deserve severe punishment? Do the "Jews" (however you want to define that rather nebulous and troublesome term) "deserve" punishment more than I do? In one sense, "the Jews" standing before Pilate speak for all of us, His blood was shed for us, His blood is also upon us and our children. I realize that prophetically, this is but a sign of God being rejected (once again) by "His People" but this is nothing more than a bigger blessing, since now "His People" becomes a superset rather than a subset. Should we blame and punish these people who helped make salvation possible for you and me? God forbid!!!

If "the Jews" killed Christ, and "the Jews" were those "chosen People of God, and I am now a Person of God, then I must share their guilt at some level. Singling out their genetic descendants seems rather silly if not stupid, and certainly of no discernibly edifying purpose. Am I seriously wrong here?

Herman the Pooh

Jonathan Michael

27-12-2008, 11:15 AM

St. John liberally uses the term "Jew" in a negative way to refer to the Pharisees in his Gospel, so clearly "Jew" is not used as a racial or genetic way. Jew, refers to those who follow the Old Law but reject Jesus at the Messiah, which includes those who lived at the time of the Incarnation, and all followers of Judaism since. After the destruction of the temple, no other form of Judaism existed except that of the Pharisees - the synagogue teachers - and so the Judaism that exists today is derived from this, the faith of those who rejected and murdered Christ, Our Lord. Therefore, the conflation between "Jews", as the followers of Judaism today, and Pharisees of the 1st century is entirely justified as no branch of Judaism - liberal, conservative, or orthodox - is derived from anything other than Phariseeism. That any of us crucify Christ again when we sin is not negated by the above points, nor are the above points negated by the fact that Christians continue to sin. Pointing out the faithlessness of the Jews in particular is not because we hate them more than other religions or groups of people, but because of our love toward them! We recognize and know the history of the Nation of Israel and the Old Covenant; which makes the rejection of the New Covenant by the seed of Abraham even more painful and distressing. It is little wonder that the Jews are singled out as a specific (religious) group in the Good Friday Prayers of the Church - Orthodox Christians earnestly hope and pray that they are brought to Christ, Who is the fulfilment of their Law.

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 08:43 PM

Ryan

27-12-2008, 10:35 PM

Herman Blaydoe

28-12-2008, 12:41 AM

Jews killed Christ. So what? Romans also killed Christ, after all it was their laws and their punishment and their nails and their soldiers that drove them in and who hoisted Him up. So what? Should we blame Italians as well?

"Jews" are people too. Christ died for them just as much as He died for me. Of what possible edification is it to single out anybody. Yes, we can talk about how the descendants of Abraham gave up their "birthright" as did Esau and opened up salvation to everyone, even as our Lord Himself said to St. Photini, the Samaritan woman at the well, "...for salvation is from the Jews..."

Jews killed Christ. Romans killed Christ. I killed Christ. Saying "Jews killed Christ" is nothing more than an excuse to do bad things to certain peoples, other than that it serves no real useful purpose. And today's Jews have no more "guilt" than Italians or you or I do. Really.

So again I say, so what?

Jonathan Michael

28-12-2008, 06:19 AM

Hello Herman,

Your post above seems to be a recapitulation of the points you made in Post #64; fair enough, you might not feel as though your points have been addressed.

However I do feel I have pointed out why the "Jews" are given special attention in Orthodox teaching, Scriptures, and prayers, and also why the term "Jew" should not be thought of as a racial term in those circumstances. It because of the latter point that I think your references to the Romans is a bit of a red herring. For one thing, the Roman Empire was maintained by having native garrisons in occupied terrortories, so it's entirely possible that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ were "locals" too. But, and I cannot stress this enough, when the Gospel of John, and subsequent Church Fathers talk about "Jews" they are specifically talking about the followers of the Old Law rather than a racial group.

Now, at the top of this page in Post #61, Alexander Ignatiev posts that the "Jews" of St. John's Gospel were "Judeans", a specific nation of people almost wiped out by Titus in 70A.D. However, not only do we have the verses in St. Matthew's Gospel and the usage of "Jew" in St. John's, but we also have the account of Pentecost in St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Here we have followers of the Old Law meeting together to celebrate the Jewish festival, The Feast of the Weeks:

"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven"
(Ch 2. v5)

"Every nation", not just Judea, and not just "cradle" Jews but "proselytes" too, so it is very clear St. Luke is writing about followers of the Old Law, whether they be Cretan, Roman, or Arab. It is because these Jews - "devout" followers of the Old Law - are from every nation that the Apostles speak in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is to these Jews that Peter preaches his sermon to. That sermon begins with the words: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and heed my words..."

And that sermon ends with the words:

"Therefore let the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Who crucified Jesus? Judeans? No, because St. Peter accuses all those Jews present of crucifying Christ, even those who came from places far away to be at a Jewish festival that occured 50 days after the Passover, 50 days after Christ's crucifixion. Is he talking about the race of Jews? Clearly not, because Peter himself was born a Jew, as were all the other Apostles present. In addition, the sermon was directed at Gentile proselytes who were present, making it doubly clear that his sermon was directed at the followers of the Jewish faith and law; the Jewish faith and law that is now fulfilled!

The essay posted by Robert Hedgewood is a very good one; I have already read it before after it was linked to on this forum. I think possibly the link has been posted more than a couple of times on this forum but I think that's okay because, as I said, it's a very good essay. One of the points it makes is that Jesus forgave those who crucified Him, and so we must do the same. That means that the Jews today, who are through history and religious tradition the ancestors of those who crucified Christ, should also be forgiven.

But Judaism, and her followers, will always be given "special" treatment. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, tree-worshipping, those are different religions, opposed to Christianity with only "coincidental" agreement with certain Christian teachings. The Old Covenant given to the Jews is not anti-ethical to the Chrisitan faith; it is the foreshadowing of it. Therefore it needs special treatment, so that it is made clear that these laws, teachings, and prophecies are all true, but that they are fulfilled in Jesus the Lord and Christ, their God and Messiah, whom they crucified. Only that way can the Jews, like those at Pentecost, be "cut to the heart" and say "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And we know the answer; it is the action taken by the author of the aritcle posted by Robert: "be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

<massive understatement>Of course, not all Jews will be "cut to the heart".</massive understatement>

And in fact, many Jews have and will in the future, react very vehmently against any suggestion that they should become Christian. I believe that it is here were much of the hate and animosity stems from; as Talmudic prayers against Christians (cursing us) demonstrate. That Christians have in the past themselves reacted violently against such provacation is wrong and should not be rationalized. We should always forgive, hopefully also emphathize, and love despite the Jewish reaction against Christian teaching.

But we should never stop proclaiming the truth regarding the Old Law; the truth grounded in Scripture and expounded by our Holy Fathers.

Apologies for length.

Jonathan Michael

28-12-2008, 03:10 PM

That means that the Jews today, who are through history and religious tradition the ancestors of those who crucified Christ, should also be forgiven.

Apologies, the above should read "descendants" not "ancestors"

Herman Blaydoe

28-12-2008, 08:30 PM

Hello Herman,

Your post above seems to be a recapitulation of the points you made in Post #64; fair enough, you might not feel as though your points have been addressed.

However I do feel I have pointed out why the "Jews" are given special attention in Orthodox teaching, Scriptures, and prayers, and also why the term "Jew" should not be thought of as a racial term in those circumstances. It because of the latter point that I think your references to the Romans is a bit of a red herring. For one thing, the Roman Empire was maintained by having native garrisons in occupied terrortories, so it's entirely possible that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ were "locals" too. But, and I cannot stress this enough, when the Gospel of John, and subsequent Church Fathers talk about "Jews" they are specifically talking about the followers of the Old Law rather than a racial group.

Nope, I think it is pretty clear that the Roman soldiers were not native Jews from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. THAT is a red herring. The point of referring to the Jews is because they were primarily ADDRESSING the Jews! They had to explain why the Jews had to do something different now that Christ has come, why they were no longer the 'default' chosen people and that the doors were to be opened to non-Jews.

Now, at the top of this page in Post #61, Alexander Ignatiev posts that the "Jews" of St. John's Gospel were "Judeans", a specific nation of people almost wiped out by Titus in 70A.D. However, not only do we have the verses in St. Matthew's Gospel and the usage of "Jew" in St. John's, but we also have the account of Pentecost in St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Here we have followers of the Old Law meeting together to celebrate the Jewish festival, The Feast of the Weeks:

"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven"
(Ch 2. v5)

"Every nation", not just Judea, and not just "cradle" Jews but "proselytes" too, so it is very clear St. Luke is writing about followers of the Old Law, whether they be Cretan, Roman, or Arab. It is because these Jews - "devout" followers of the Old Law - are from every nation that the Apostles speak in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is to these Jews that Peter preaches his sermon to. That sermon begins with the words: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and heed my words..."

And that sermon ends with the words:

"Therefore let the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Who crucified Jesus? Judeans? No, because St. Peter accuses all those Jews present of crucifying Christ, even those who came from places far away to be at a Jewish festival that occured 50 days after the Passover, 50 days after Christ's crucifixion. Is he talking about the race of Jews? Clearly not, because Peter himself was born a Jew, as were all the other Apostles present. In addition, the sermon was directed at Gentile proselytes who were present, making it doubly clear that his sermon was directed at the followers of the Jewish faith and law; the Jewish faith and law that is now fulfilled!

Yes, St. Paul was addressing his fellow people, the Jews, so to speak in such a manner is appropriate. But we who are not Jews speak in such a manner, perhaps it is less appropriate and history shows us how it can be and has been twisted into an excuse to persecute people, not just Jews but anyone who can be considered "different". We who are Christians should have no such excuse.

The essay posted by Robert Hedgewood is a very good one; I have already read it before after it was linked to on this forum. I think possibly the link has been posted more than a couple of times on this forum but I think that's okay because, as I said, it's a very good essay. One of the points it makes is that Jesus forgave those who crucified Him, and so we must do the same. That means that the Jews today, who are through history and religious tradition the ancestors of those who crucified Christ, should also be forgiven.

Except that certain elements, even within the Church haven't forgiven and do not forgive and to this day circulate those silly Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if they haven't been thoroughly discredited and debunked and still blame "the Jews" for whatever happens to be bothering them at the time.

But Judaism, and her followers, will always be given "special" treatment. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, tree-worshipping, those are different religions, opposed to Christianity with only "coincidental" agreement with certain Christian teachings. The Old Covenant given to the Jews is not anti-ethical to the Chrisitan faith; it is the foreshadowing of it. Therefore it needs special treatment, so that it is made clear that these laws, teachings, and prophecies are all true, but that they are fulfilled in Jesus the Lord and Christ, their God and Messiah, whom they crucified. Only that way can the Jews, like those at Pentecost, be "cut to the heart" and say "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And we know the answer; it is the action taken by the author of the aritcle posted by Robert: "be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I find that wording troubling. "Special treatment" by God maybe, but by us? What constitutes "special treatment"? Who gets to define it? Does it include ostracization or perhaps "special" camps? Driving them away? All these things done by people claiming that Jews deserve "special treatment".

<massive understatement>Of course, not all Jews will be "cut to the heart".</massive understatement>

And in fact, many Jews have and will in the future, react very vehmently against any suggestion that they should become Christian. I believe that it is here were much of the hate and animosity stems from; as Talmudic prayers against Christians (cursing us) demonstrate. That Christians have in the past themselves reacted violently against such provacation is wrong and should not be rationalized. We should always forgive, hopefully also emphathize, and love despite the Jewish reaction against Christian teaching.

But we should never stop proclaiming the truth regarding the Old Law; the truth grounded in Scripture and expounded by our Holy Fathers.

Apologies for length.

I just think we need to be careful and circumspect when we do so. I think that much has been taken totally out of context and used to justify very unseemly action in the past and will be done again in the future. It is not our place to give "Jews" special treatment, that is for God and God alone. Fact is, Jews have been and will continue to be treated as "special" and not in a good way by people, including Orthodox Christians, but hopefully not by any that I have come in contact with!

Herman

Ryan

31-01-2009, 08:55 PM

I think it's worthwhile to revisit this thread, to mention the name of Alexander Schmorell, who is being considered for canonization as passion bearer, and who is already being venerated in his hometown of Munich. He was an Orthodox Christian and a member of the White Rose resistance group against Hitler, and was executed by the Nazis.

According to this article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_Schmorell), he wrote a leaflet which "is the only known public outcry by any German resistance group against the Holocaust."

Mark Harrison

16-03-2009, 07:29 AM

THANK GOD!

I could list any number of reasons why Orthodox should not only not practice anti-Semtism today, but should vocally repudiate it, but I'll confine myself to a few suggestions: first, read the text for Holy Week that pertain to Judas Iscariot, and those of 29 August that pertain to Herod. Then consider how few people really had anything to do with the crucifixion of Christ, and if those words "His blood be upon us and upon our children" come to mind, consider Christ's own words from the Cross: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." It was a small mob action that took place in Jerusalem that dark Friday, not a conspiracy against God by the Jewish people.

Besides which, we should be thankful, not hateful, and above all remember that our God is a good God who loves mankind. He will do whatever is right, true and just with each and every person.

I think it's worthwhile to revisit this thread, to mention the name of Alexander Schmorell, who is being considered for canonization as passion bearer, and who is already being venerated in his hometown of Munich. He was an Orthodox Christian and a member of the White Rose resistance group against Hitler, and was executed by the Nazis.

According to this article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_Schmorell), he wrote a leaflet which "is the only known public outcry by any German resistance group against the Holocaust."

Mark Harrison

16-03-2009, 08:24 AM

I hadn't heard of Schmorell, and only vaguely of Die Weiße Rose. Where did you hear that Schmorell might be glorified - Orthodox Wiki?

I think it's worthwhile to revisit this thread, to mention the name of Alexander Schmorell, who is being considered for canonization as passion bearer, and who is already being venerated in his hometown of Munich. He was an Orthodox Christian and a member of the White Rose resistance group against Hitler, and was executed by the Nazis.

According to this article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_Schmorell), he wrote a leaflet which "is the only known public outcry by any German resistance group against the Holocaust."

Margaret S.

16-03-2009, 04:26 PM

There is an icon of Alexander Schmorell, I found it on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26904282@N00/2037231326/ I guess it's the one the Wiki article said is on the iconostatis of the ROCOR church near where he is buried.

Regards
Margaret
in Edinburgh

Ryan

17-03-2009, 03:25 AM

I hadn't heard of Schmorell, and only vaguely of Die Weiße Rose. Where did you hear that Schmorell might be glorified - Orthodox Wiki?

An article from the ROCOR site: http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2007/10enorenburg.html

It says:

The question arose time and again of the glorification of Alexander Schmorell by the Church in general, to which Vladyka Mark responded that he first needs to find time to compose a service to the martyr.

Scott Pierson

07-10-2009, 03:24 AM

I wanted to apologize for some of my old posts in this thread. They were confrontational and divisive. I was something of a loud mouth at the time. Please forgive me.

Grace Singh

04-03-2010, 05:27 AM

while not related to Orthodoxy, this thread has reminded me of a YouTube film about a lady who survived the Holocaust, and later became a Christian. it is important to also consider how Christian history looks from the eyes of others, and why.

Testimony of a Holocaust Survivor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOMS-GcDU70)

it is also worth noting that the Indian Orthdox Church, historically, never blamed the Jewish people for the death of Christ. rather, they stated that the Romans had killed Christ, as crucifixion was a Roman and not a Jewish method of execution.

Cyprian (Humphrey)

04-03-2010, 06:07 PM

I have to echo both Herman and Grace here. If one insists on determining who killed Christ, as in a people group, yes, in a certain way "the Jews" killed Christ - whether that's a faith group, an ethnic group or genetic similarity group, is another issue. But, the Romans (ie. Italians) are just as, if not more, guilty, as they did the actual deed.

And then please consider that it was unlikely for the Roman legions stationed in Palestine to have been made up entirely of native Romans. Likely the higher ranks were, but the rank and file would have been made up of a wide ranging assortment of conscripts and volunteers from all across the Roman Empire of the day. It's not stated for certain, but it is possible that there could have every type of person from Viking to Ethiopian to Celt to Persian (and even Jews!) populating that Garrison. It was kinda like the first century version of the Légion étrangère (the English translation is the "French Foreign Legion" - and yes, it still exists, and yes, they're guys you don't want to meet in a dark alley! - trust me on that one).

So the actual ethnicity, race and religion of the ones who did the actual deed of crucifying Christ is anyone's guess, and almost certainly a mix of everyone. My point is that we ALL killed Christ. I killed Christ.

I can't blame anyone else for something I did.

Mark Harrison

05-03-2010, 02:10 PM

Dear Scott and others,

You ask some pertinent questions about the value of these types of large-scale apologies for crimes that were committed long ago.

Sometimes, I wonder if apologies are more for the benefit of the offended or for the offender. At times, a person who has wronged another will apologize and then continue to do the same wrongs; that doesn't seem beneficial to anyone, and it certainly is not true repentance. Oppositely, if a person truly repents and never harms their neighbor again; is it necessary to make an apology?

I think, in the case of large-scale crimes that show hatred toward an entire group of people, that an apology is fitting. Because these types of crimes are directed not at a single person but an entire group, the feeling of being hated that the victims experienced is passed onto future generations. An apology from the offending group of people, along with true repentance, can do much to alleviate on-going tension. The offending group must also be committed to not teaching their children to hate. I was impressed recently when I heard that Germany had made public their records of Jews who had been persecuted in the Holocaust. In this case, the Germans are not trying to hide the wrong that was done by the Third Reich. Instead, they are being open about it, which will prevent people from denying that it ever happened and give the families of victims a chance to learn what happened to their loved ones.

But, this topic brings up a question that I have. I had not realized that the Orthodox Church and its people had participated in persecution of Jews. I had not realized either that anti-semitism had been strong among Orthodox people. I know this can be a delicate topic, but have parts of the Orthodox Church carried feelings of anti-semitism? If so, it would be important to me to know that we had at least acknowledged that it was wrong.

Jennifer

Sadly, Jennifer, there has been a lot of anti-Semitic hate amongst Orthodox from specious claims to Jews as a class being responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution and the financial woes in early 20th century Europe to statements by St John Chrysostom that I think the Jews understandably find distasteful, especially in the light of the fact that Adolf Hitler used Chrysostom to fuel his own hatred. I've heard such anti-Semitic remarks, sadly, from people I have loved and otherwise respected.

If you listen to the hymns for Holy Week superficially, they sound quite anti-Semitic, with the talk about the "lawless Sannhedrin" and references to the Jews, as a people being ungrateful, or even deicidal. A few questions need to be asked, however. First how many Jews, even amongst those located in the environs of Jerusalem, knew what was going on? We read in the NT that thousands came to know who this Jesus of Nazareth was, but how many really knew anything about him? How many actually had anything at all to do with the mob scene that took place that Friday morning? Isn't it rather ridiculous to slight the entire Jewish people for all centuries for a mob that took place on morning? Shall we do the same with Americans or British whose people have occasionally taken part in lynch mobs over the years?

What is more is that if you look at the hymns more deeply, and compare them with the hymns, say, for 29 August, you'll see that the likes of Judas Iscariot and Herod (really both Herods), are villified much more, and with cause, especially Judas, "apostle and deceiver, friend and devil" whose assumed the very shape of avarice, all because he did not know how to sing "Allelulia." In other words, his ingratitude destroyed him. His soul was already darkened "ailing with avarice" but that Thursday night he was able to receive the Lord's Body from His own hand, and then walk out and turn that Body over. He is the ONLY person in history, save perhaps Cain, whom the Lord Himself calls damned - "the son of perdition." Of those who stood by and let his crucifixion happen, and even those who got riled up in a mob, He said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

There were hundreds of thousands of Jews who, by Sunday morning when Christ arose, had no knowledge whatsoever of who the guy was who had been crucified outside of Jerusalem, or why He had been crucified. He was yet another victim of Pilate's thirst for blood (and even the Gospels don't really allow for Pilate to "wash his hands" of the crime, though he symbolically does so. He had the power to do what was right and he chose to not exercise it. Shall all Romans, and ergo Italians, or even Spanish, French, Romanians, Portuguese be condemned for Pilate's order?

As Orthodox Christians, we do not believe we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Such a belief is predicated on a bad Latin rendering of Romans 5:12. We inherit the consequences in our flesh and in our environment, but not the guilt. I cannot be personally guilty of some one else's sin. That is a principle - a fundamental principle - and it applies to the Jews too. No Jew today is guilty of the death of Christ. No Jew of Jesus day who lived off in Bethlehem and had no idea of what was going on 2 miles away in Jerusalem is guilty of deicide.

The Jews, no more and no less than any other people who have ever walked this earth, have had amongst them good people and evil people. There are good who fall prey to evil thoughts at times, and evil people who repent. There are people who have happy outlooks on life, and those who are constantly "kvetching." This is human, not Jewish. As we listen to the hymns of Holy Week, we must consider the entire contexts - especially, how Judas is treated in those hymns, and just was people are being spoken of, and how that language truly applies, because even if events transpired word-for-word how they are presented in the Gospels (which do not purport to be objective histories), what is presented is a mob action, not the uprising of God's entire People against him.

The sin that has been carried out over the centuries against the Jews, systematically, far outweighs the persecutions, localized in time and place, in which St. Paul at first took part. I, like others, resent the fact that Christians are nowadays supposed to be feel guilty for every crime anybody who was supposed to be a Christian ever committed. We are not guilty of the sins of others. What we can be guilty of is the sin of passively allowing that sin to be repeated, and that we must prevent, but we must prevent the evil from reoccurring in the strength of confidence in the Holy Gospel.

Grace Singh

05-03-2010, 07:19 PM

Brother Mark, that is beautifully said, and true. God bless you.

let us also remember that our Lord Christ came as a Jew to fulfill Jewish prophecy, that all of His twelve disciples were Godly Jews, and that St. Jude (Thaddeus) another Judas, is held to have preached the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, and Mesopotamia and to have been martyred for his faith.

there have also been Jewish converts to the Orthodox faith, as well as to the Roman Catholic Church. one Jew i spoke with said to me "after all the terrible things that have been done to my people in the name of Jesus, i feel like believing in Him would be a betrayal to my own race". perhaps many other Jews feel the same. hatred has kept millions of people from embracing and recognising their Messiah and King.

anti-Semitism is a Satanic disease of the heart and mind. we can not fix the past, but we can admit to it, learn from it, and in light of the present more faithfully love our (jewish) neighbors as ourselves, for Christ's sake.

David Robles

06-03-2010, 12:37 AM

Subdeacon Mark:
Your post is right on! I particularly like your reference to the proper Orthodox approach to ancestral sin ( Fr John Romanides has a great book on this). Anti-Zionism and anti-Judaism are not anti-Semitism. Zionism is a political movement and we are free to disagree with it. Many Orthodox Jews disagree with this. Judaism is a religion and we do not have to embrace it, because Truth is found in JesusChrist.
But it saddens me when I sense anti-Semitism among the Orthodox. The Jews are welcome to 'the Father's table' just like any other race. I can't understand how anyone can justify such a prejudice as anti-Semitism

Kosta

06-03-2010, 03:55 AM

I think part of the problem is that many people believe in certain conspiracy theories concerning the jews. I also think many embrace these conspiracy theories based on jealousy. Jews tend to be very successful wherever they go, so many have a need to rationalize jewish success to make their own shortcomings seem understandable.

I've seen phobia of zionism and a belief in a 'secret jewish lobby ruling the world', promoted by uncanonical orthodox groups, Such propaganda implys we are all helpless wimps to these all powerful jews. That we need to be vigilant and trust no one, for the jews control everyone and are a master race and were their stupid sub-human serfs who are being manipulated. Its actually quite idiotic and such people who believe in this probably suffer from low self esteem and other shortcomings.

As far as the liturgical texts of holy week, while many hymns and prayers maybe scandalous to jewish ears, the bulk of the blame is placed on Judas Iscariot with special attention given to the 30 pieces of silver- the love of money. In the Creed it is Pontius Pilate who bears responsibility. Thus regardless of who the 'jews' refer to, the church gives blame to only 2 historical figures, a disciple and a roman governor. We should never justify anti-semitism or the persecution of the jews or the holocaust as a deserved curse , based on first century jews who said, 'let their blood be on us and our children'. On Holy Thursday evening at the service of the Holy Passion we chant the Praises:

'Israel my firstborn son, committed two evil deeds. He forsook me, the source of the Living Water, and hewed out forhimself a broken well, and he crucified me on the wood, and asked for the release of Barabbas. The heavens were aghast at this, and the sun hid its rays. But you o Israel were not ashamed and delivered me to death. Forgive them, O Holy Father, for they know not what they have done."

We pray for their foregiveness not their annhilation. The hymns about recompensing the jews for their evil deeds have already occured, when judgement was visited upon Jerusalem in 70 a.d., the grace of old Israel according to bthe flesh ceased, and they withered away.