The First Crusade, 1099 AD

4,145 Views | 73 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by The Banned
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

747Ag said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Sapper Redux said:

PabloSerna said:

Are you confusing the actions by certain people who are also Catholic with Papal directives to all Catholics?


No. I am pointing out that the Church had tools in 1096 to limit the violence and punish the perpetrators. They didn't use them. There were individual bishops who attempted to protect local Jews, which is noble of them, but they seemed completely unwilling to actually stop the mobs.


Because antisemitism was an official part of Catholic dogma until 1965.
lololol... ROFL even.


Like the "pro perfidis Judaeis" (for the traitorous Jews) prayer being part of the Good Friday liturgy.


What do you call it when God himself is sent personally as the fulfillment of a certain people's entire identity, and is put to death?

Secondly, we're praying for them. On our holiest and most sacred day of the year.

Do the Jews have any prayers for Catholics, in any of their liturgies?


Jews don't believe they have to convert the world and don't believe non-Jews are eternally damned.


Depends on which books you read doesn't it?


Please quote the book you're reading.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BonfireNerd04 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

747Ag said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Sapper Redux said:

PabloSerna said:

Are you confusing the actions by certain people who are also Catholic with Papal directives to all Catholics?


No. I am pointing out that the Church had tools in 1096 to limit the violence and punish the perpetrators. They didn't use them. There were individual bishops who attempted to protect local Jews, which is noble of them, but they seemed completely unwilling to actually stop the mobs.


Because antisemitism was an official part of Catholic dogma until 1965.
lololol... ROFL even.


Like the "pro perfidis Judaeis" (for the traitorous Jews) prayer being part of the Good Friday liturgy.


What do you call it when God himself is sent personally as the fulfillment of a certain people's entire identity, and is put to death?

Secondly, we're praying for them. On our holiest and most sacred day of the year.

Do the Jews have any prayers for Catholics, in any of their liturgies?


Jews don't believe they have to convert the world and don't believe non-Jews are eternally damned.


Depends on which books you read doesn't it?


Please quote the book you're reading.


The Babylonian Talmud; Rosh Hashanah and Gittin tracts to be exact. Especially pertinent since the Babylonian Talmud, written in the Sassanid empire, allowed Jews to freely speak their mind more so than the previous writings under Roman and Christian rule.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sorry, but saying it's "baked into the theology" is asinine. All the original Christians were jews.

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

Within Christianity specifically, there has been a quite a complex love/hate relationship from the very beginning. The Christian Bible has always started with The Torah, the Christian sects that tried to abandon The Torah are on the trash heap of history, and no other religion or worldview defends Judaism and Isreal more then Christians in the modern world.

You are simply attacking a straw man when you focus on the adversarial points of contact while ignoring the bigger picture.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

747Ag said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Sapper Redux said:

PabloSerna said:

Are you confusing the actions by certain people who are also Catholic with Papal directives to all Catholics?


No. I am pointing out that the Church had tools in 1096 to limit the violence and punish the perpetrators. They didn't use them. There were individual bishops who attempted to protect local Jews, which is noble of them, but they seemed completely unwilling to actually stop the mobs.


Because antisemitism was an official part of Catholic dogma until 1965.
lololol... ROFL even.


Like the "pro perfidis Judaeis" (for the traitorous Jews) prayer being part of the Good Friday liturgy.


What do you call it when God himself is sent personally as the fulfillment of a certain people's entire identity, and is put to death?

Secondly, we're praying for them. On our holiest and most sacred day of the year.

Do the Jews have any prayers for Catholics, in any of their liturgies?


Jews don't believe they have to convert the world and don't believe non-Jews are eternally damned.


Depends on which books you read doesn't it?


Please quote the book you're reading.


The Babylonian Talmud; Rosh Hashanah and Gittin tracts to be exact. Especially pertinent since the Babylonian Talmud, written in the Sassanid empire, allowed Jews to freely speak their mind more so than the previous writings under Roman and Christian rule.


Specifically quote what you're claiming. The Talmud, as has been extensively explained multiple times before, is not holy writ, it's a series of arguments and hypotheticals based around the Mishnah in which some arguments are accepted and others aren't.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

I'm sorry, but saying it's "baked into the theology" is asinine. All the original Christians were jews.

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

Within Christianity specifically, there has been a quite a complex love/hate relationship from the very beginning. The Christian Bible has always started with The Torah, the Christian sects that tried to abandon The Torah are on the trash heap of history, and no other religion or worldview defends Judaism and Isreal more then Christians in the modern world.

You are simply attacking a straw man when you focus on the adversarial points of contact while ignoring the bigger picture.


It wasn't particularly complex after the second or third century. And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages. Jews theoretically had some level of protection but severely limited lives typically lived in poverty and squalor with ample violence attending them. The theological justifications for antisemitism and the doctrines of supersessionism were very early developlments in orthodox (small 'o') Christianity. As for the modern world, there's a significant amount of guilt for the death toll that the antisemitism engendered. But we still see quite a bit of old antisemitic canards in the western world even today.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quo Vadis? said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

747Ag said:

BonfireNerd04 said:

Sapper Redux said:

PabloSerna said:

Are you confusing the actions by certain people who are also Catholic with Papal directives to all Catholics?


No. I am pointing out that the Church had tools in 1096 to limit the violence and punish the perpetrators. They didn't use them. There were individual bishops who attempted to protect local Jews, which is noble of them, but they seemed completely unwilling to actually stop the mobs.


Because antisemitism was an official part of Catholic dogma until 1965.
lololol... ROFL even.


Like the "pro perfidis Judaeis" (for the traitorous Jews) prayer being part of the Good Friday liturgy.


What do you call it when God himself is sent personally as the fulfillment of a certain people's entire identity, and is put to death?

Secondly, we're praying for them. On our holiest and most sacred day of the year.

Do the Jews have any prayers for Catholics, in any of their liturgies?


Jews don't believe they have to convert the world and don't believe non-Jews are eternally damned.


Depends on which books you read doesn't it?


Please quote the book you're reading.


The Babylonian Talmud; Rosh Hashanah and Gittin tracts to be exact. Especially pertinent since the Babylonian Talmud, written in the Sassanid empire, allowed Jews to freely speak their mind more so than the previous writings under Roman and Christian rule.


Specifically quote what you're claiming. The Talmud, as has been extensively explained multiple times before, is not holy writ, it's a series of arguments and hypotheticals based around the Mishnah in which some arguments are accepted and others aren't.


That's what I said; it depends on which books you read.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Silent For Too Long said:

I'm sorry, but saying it's "baked into the theology" is asinine. All the original Christians were jews.

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

Within Christianity specifically, there has been a quite a complex love/hate relationship from the very beginning. The Christian Bible has always started with The Torah, the Christian sects that tried to abandon The Torah are on the trash heap of history, and no other religion or worldview defends Judaism and Isreal more then Christians in the modern world.

You are simply attacking a straw man when you focus on the adversarial points of contact while ignoring the bigger picture.


It wasn't particularly complex after the second or third century. And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages. Jews theoretically had some level of protection but severely limited lives typically lived in poverty and squalor with ample violence attending them. The theological justifications for antisemitism and the doctrines of supersessionism were very early developlments in orthodox (small 'o') Christianity. As for the modern world, there's a significant amount of guilt for the death toll that the antisemitism engendered. But we still see quite a bit of old antisemitic canards in the western world even today.


Yeah, primarily by your peers in secular academia.

You are still wildly oversimplifying a complex history to fit your narrative, and ignoring all the antisemitism that has nothing to do with Christianity.
Quote:


And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages. Jews theoretically had some level of protection but severely limited lives typically lived in poverty and squalor with ample violence attending them.


Um...one of the infamous sources of animosity was that some jews were quite wealthy. To paint them all as impoverished is wild, WILD, revisionist history.

There were middle class jews, poor jews, and upper class jews who were quite wealthy do to their ties to the finance industry.
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And Jews were over-represented in the European banking industry because it was one of the few professions that they weren't banned from.
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

From the pre-1955 missale... You go with one translation while we have a different one.

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews [perfidis Judaeis]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness [Judaicam perfidiam]: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Do you know see how referring to Jews as "faithless" and "blind" can be construed as antisemitic, or at the very least insulting?

How would you react if Muslims prayed for you to remove the veil from your heart so that you may acknowledge Muhammad as the greatest Prophet?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BonfireNerd04 said:

Quote:

From the pre-1955 missale... You go with one translation while we have a different one.

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews [perfidis Judaeis]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness [Judaicam perfidiam]: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Do you know see how referring to Jews as "faithless" and "blind" can be construed as antisemitic, or at the very least insulting?

How would you react if Muslims prayed for you to remove the veil from your heart so that you may acknowledge Muhammad as the greatest Prophet?

Um........they do?

There is nothing antisemitic or insulting about praying for others, really strange take.
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

That is true. The Jews have always had their enemies. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Moabites, Philistines, Assyrians, and Babylonians in Biblical days. Haman from the book of Esther. The Greek Seleucids in the days of the Maccabees. The Alexandrian Riots.

But it must be acknowledged that many of the antisemites throughout history have been Christian or Muslim. Religions that both claim (in very simplified terms) to be the "true" Judaism that picked up where the genetic children of Israel went wrong.

So why, then, are there still Jews who practice Judaism as if Jesus and Muhammad never existed? For Christianity and Islam, that's a question that needs to be answered. And theologians have picked some very negative answers to that question. Which, as I see it, is the root of theological antisemitism.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Sapper Redux said:

Silent For Too Long said:

I'm sorry, but saying it's "baked into the theology" is asinine. All the original Christians were jews.

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

Within Christianity specifically, there has been a quite a complex love/hate relationship from the very beginning. The Christian Bible has always started with The Torah, the Christian sects that tried to abandon The Torah are on the trash heap of history, and no other religion or worldview defends Judaism and Isreal more then Christians in the modern world.

You are simply attacking a straw man when you focus on the adversarial points of contact while ignoring the bigger picture.


It wasn't particularly complex after the second or third century. And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages. Jews theoretically had some level of protection but severely limited lives typically lived in poverty and squalor with ample violence attending them. The theological justifications for antisemitism and the doctrines of supersessionism were very early developlments in orthodox (small 'o') Christianity. As for the modern world, there's a significant amount of guilt for the death toll that the antisemitism engendered. But we still see quite a bit of old antisemitic canards in the western world even today.


Yeah, primarily by your peers in secular academia.

You are still wildly oversimplifying a complex history to fit your narrative, and ignoring all the antisemitism that has nothing to do with Christianity.
Quote:


And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages. Jews theoretically had some level of protection but severely limited lives typically lived in poverty and squalor with ample violence attending them.


Um...one of the infamous sources of animosity was that some jews were quite wealthy. To paint them all as impoverished is wild, WILD, revisionist history.

There were middle class jews, poor jews, and upper class jews who were quite wealthy do to their ties to the finance industry.


I'm not ignoring non-Christian antisemitism. But remind me, what event are we talking about? And where and when did that event take place? The massacres of the Rhineland in 1096 were not borne out of Roman antisemitism. The leaders of the mobs were quite explicit about the theological underpinnings of their actions.

As for the second part, apparently reading comprehension is escaping you. Typically Jews were extremely poor. Look up the ghettos in places like Rome where Jews were forced to live for centuries. That a tiny number of Jews made money (and kept some of it, since cancelling debts was often a motivation for expulsions and pogroms) does not negate the fact that the vast majority of Jews were little more than beggars in Europe.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BonfireNerd04 said:

Quote:

From the pre-1955 missale... You go with one translation while we have a different one.

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews [perfidis Judaeis]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness [Judaicam perfidiam]: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Do you know see how referring to Jews as "faithless" and "blind" can be construed as antisemitic, or at the very least insulting?

How would you react if Muslims prayed for you to remove the veil from your heart so that you may acknowledge Muhammad as the greatest Prophet?

Meh. Some stripes of protestants been praying for me and my ilk for a few centuries to leave the so-called ***** of Babylon. Other faiths praying for me to convert? Meh, ok. I won't convert, but it doesn't get me riled up either.

Look, it's really weird for people to get riled up about getting prayed for. Jewish people did and do lack faith in the Messiah that has already come (from them!) as Jesus Christ.

And of all the religions out there, most tend to claim truth. Which means others, from their perspective, teach some falsehoods. Catholics believe that protestants have some things wrong. Same with the Orthodox churches. Islam. Judaism. Sikhism. Buddhism.

Salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Not praying for those of other faiths as well as the unbelievers is an act of neglect if not malice. Withholding the gospel of Jesus Christ is likewise neglectful and/or malicious.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The vast majority of everybody were little more then beggars in the middle ages.

You are making broad sweeping generalizations that you simply don't have the data to back up. It just fits a narrative you want to soap box on.

The fact is we know, for a fact, that it was explicitly the economic prosperity in jewish communities that was a prominent driver in antisemitism, particularly during relatively depressed times.

Do you have any actual data to back up your assertions that jews were more economically disadvantaged per capita relative to Christians?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What Sapper said:
Quote:


It wasn't particularly complex after the second or third century. And it wasn't particularly complex during the Middle Ages.


What Google's AI says:
Quote:


During the Middle Ages in Europe, the economic situations of Jews and Christians varied, and it's not accurate to say that Jews were universally poorer than Christians. In fact, the wealth and poverty levels within both groups spanned a wide range, similar to how it is in society today.

Here's a nuanced perspective on their economic roles and circumstances:

Early Middle Ages (8th-12th Century): In the early Middle Ages, many Jewish communities were quite prosperous, actively involved in trade and crafts. Jews migrating from the more developed Middle East brought valuable business knowledge and skills, excelling in professions like wine trade, which often required travel and connections. While the wealthiest people were usually Christians holding positions in government, military, or owning large estates, the majority of the Christian population consisted of land-leasing peasants who, in today's terms, were considered very poor. Compared to this peasant majority, many Jews were engaged in professions that provided them with a relatively better standard of living.

High and Late Middle Ages (12th-15th Century): As Europe advanced into the High and Late Middle Ages, the economic landscape shifted. Christian guilds became increasingly prominent in crafts and professions, often excluding Jews from participation. This pushed many Jews into professions like moneylending, which was prohibited for Christians by the Church. While some Jewish moneylenders achieved significant wealth, many others were involved in smaller-scale lending and faced considerable risks, including confiscation of their assets by rulers or hostility from debtors.


FWIW

Edit to add: the fact that you were trying to paint over a thousand years of interactions between millions of people in multiple different countries and cultures with a broad and simplistic brush is what I found ridiculous.

Of course it was complex.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we're now pretending AI is an adequate academic-level source. Amazing.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

The vast majority of everybody were little more then beggars in the middle ages.

You are making broad sweeping generalizations that you simply don't have the data to back up. It just fits a narrative you want to soap box on.

The fact is we know, for a fact, that it was explicitly the economic prosperity in jewish communities that was a prominent driver in antisemitism, particularly during relatively depressed times.

Do you have any actual data to back up your assertions that jews were more economically disadvantaged per capita relative to Christians?


Provide your source.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

So we're now pretending AI is an adequate academic-level source. Amazing.


First of all, it's Texags. This isn't my dissertation.

I take it with a grain of salt. It's a million times better then narratives you are presenting with nothing backing them up, though.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Silent For Too Long said:

The vast majority of everybody were little more then beggars in the middle ages.

You are making broad sweeping generalizations that you simply don't have the data to back up. It just fits a narrative you want to soap box on.

The fact is we know, for a fact, that it was explicitly the economic prosperity in jewish communities that was a prominent driver in antisemitism, particularly during relatively depressed times.

Do you have any actual data to back up your assertions that jews were more economically disadvantaged per capita relative to Christians?


Provide your source.


Irony.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BonfireNerd04 said:

Silent For Too Long said:

Antisemitism is a bizarrely global and universally human condition. There was plenty of it in Rome before Christianity, and there's plenty of it in post-Chrisitian antitheist academia today, as has been become abundantly apparent recently.

That is true. The Jews have always had their enemies. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Moabites, Philistines, Assyrians, and Babylonians in Biblical days. Haman from the book of Esther. The Greek Seleucids in the days of the Maccabees. The Alexandrian Riots.

But it must be acknowledged that many of the antisemites throughout history have been Christian or Muslim. Religions that both claim (in very simplified terms) to be the "true" Judaism that picked up where the genetic children of Israel went wrong.

So why, then, are there still Jews who practice Judaism as if Jesus and Muhammad never existed? For Christianity and Islam, that's a question that needs to be answered. And theologians have picked some very negative answers to that question. Which, as I see it, is the root of theological antisemitism.


As Christians, we didn't help the judeans in armed conflict against Romans the first few centuries, and many if not most turned their backs on Christianity after that. It's also necessary to pivot away from a temple if it's gone, and a messiah who hasn't arrived.

Early Christians like Athanasius and otherspracticed apologetics by engaging with their teaching and prophecy from scriptures; I'm not sure it follows that antisemitism is theological.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nobody was more antisemitic than Luther, who advocated killing Jews and burning their synagogues.

"It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews. Luther's advice was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler."
American journalist William L. Shirer
"Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In this book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them… "
Nazi publisher, editor and a writer for the German newspaper Der Strmer. Julius Streicher
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Luther was absolutely an anti-Semitic person, in his writings and otherwise. Still, let's not pretend this was unique among mid-evil Christianity, or before. The Nazi's were disgusting in too many ways to count and are not dispositive about anything but let's keep the context of their selective history/theology in mind.
Quote:

And regardless of his intentions, Luther's thinking on the Jewish people had a direct impact on history: The Nazis amplified Luther's anti-Semitism from the earliest days of the National Socialist movement. It helped in the creation of the heavily Nazified and racist faction of Deutsche Christen, or German Christians, within the German Lutheran church, but perhaps more significantly, partly enabled the culture of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible.

One especially repugnant case is that of Martin Sasse, the Bishop of the Evangelical Church of Thuringia during Kristallnacht in 1938. He feted the pogroms and the mass destruction of synagogues and Jewish businesses, and even tied it explicitly to Luther himself; just days after what was in effect the beginning of the organized slaughter of the Jews, he distributed a pamphlet entitled Martin Luther on the Jews: Away with Them! in which he claimed the Nazis were acting as Christians in their violent anti-Semitism, and that this was precisely what Luther would have wanted.

Yes, there was also a powerful anti-Nazi movement within Lutheranism, and the sacrifice and even martyrdom of those pastors and laypeople must never be forgotten. The Confessing Church, for example, was formed in opposition to the regime's attempt to unify all German Protestants into a single pro-Nazi church. Leaders like Martin Niemoller and Heinrich Gruber were sent to concentration camps but survived; writer and activist Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was accused of being part of a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, did not.

But Luther was not unique in his Christian anti-Semitism. It's such a grotesquely paradoxical reaction, of course; Jesus and most of the founders of Christianity were Jewish, but many of those claiming to love Him have hated His race and people. St. John Chrysostom, a major influence on the Eastern Orthodox Church, was virulently anti-Semitic; in 1555, Pope Paul IV issued a bull removing the rights of the Jews and subjecting them to communal humiliation. The examples are, alas, legion. Christians deliberately expunged the Jewishness of their faith and thus distorted it and shamed the teachings and life of that 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee. It's a birth defect of the historic church, and it didn't take very long for early Christian leaders to join the cluband while Luther did not codify his hatreds into tangible church policy, he left a heritage of antagonism and hostility all the same.

Not many RCC/Orthodox today renounce the antisemitic positions of Paul IV, or St John Chrysostom, either. The 'corpus Christi' is in truth a human institution regardless of one's personal beliefs as to denominational righteousness and worthiness etc, but as such it is simply flawed, and has been since it's inception. It's the best we can do.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
St John wasn't an antisemite and has nothing to be distanced from.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, we can agree to disagree, based on many of his writings, I guess.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't care what some random author in 2024 wrote. I've read his sermons.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Well, we can agree to disagree, based on many of his writings, I guess.

Did you read this article? It is the perfect example of taking quotes out of context in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

nortex97 said:

Well, we can agree to disagree, based on many of his writings, I guess.

Did you read this article? It is the perfect example of taking quotes out of context in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

Ok, yes, I am not sure what is taken out of context.

Close to the conclusion. I am not one who holds to every damnation of an ancient figure, whether a church father or otherwise, because they don't live up to 'modern' (often absurd) standards of politically correct speech/thought/language, but I think this particular John was pretty virulently unkind in his attitude broadly toward Jews and this is not an original/unique 'nortex' thought, by any means. He did (via his writings) play a role I believe in later mid-evil constructs of antisemitism. I've never heard sermons with similar sweeping condemnations, certainly.

The defenses exist, and I acknowledge as much, as at this point in the Church's history various 'sects' of brothers/Jews/gnostics etc. were competing theologically quite sharply.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teaching against Judaism is not antisemitic.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This only further proves my point. Rather than reading his corpus of works and see the similar language he used for all manners of false teachings, let's take one priest's opinion and conclude he was an anti-semite. The priest who was in charge of Christian-Jewish relations immediately after the holocaust. No way he came to a biased opinion of any kind.

I try not to resort to sarcasm, but you're just clipping opinions of people rather than going and reading what he had to say for himself. He was fiery against all manner of sin. He is a revered saint precisely because he wrote "without peer or parrallel" on many topics. He had plenty to say on sexual sin, idolatry, etc. In this particular case, Judaizing is a sin. Rejecting Jesus is a sin. This does not rise to the level of hating Jews as individuals, and it's a major charge to level
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Huh? He repeatedly accuses Jews as people and individuals of all manor of terrible behaviors and practices to include indecency, robbery, murder, even human sacrifice. He also calls Jews literal demons and invokes the charge of deicide. His charges were extremely popular in the Middle Ages and used to support all manor of antisemitic acts and coupled with Luther's writings by the Nazis. It went far beyond mere polemic and was deeply aimed at the character of the individual Jew.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Huh? He repeatedly accuses Jews as people and individuals of all manor of terrible behaviors and practices to include indecency, robbery, murder, even human sacrifice. He also calls Jews literal demons and invokes the charge of deicide. His charges were extremely popular in the Middle Ages and used to support all manor of antisemitic acts and coupled with Luther's writings by the Nazis. It went far beyond mere polemic and was deeply aimed at the character of the individual Jew.

He spoke severely of all manners of sin. He says all the same things about adulterers, pagans, etc. Adulterers are no better than wild animals. Harlots are the cause of all evil. Pagan temples are the dwelling place of demons. Is he also the father of adulterer-phobia? Of pagan hating? I don't see those accusations being lobbed out there. But when he says it about Judaism... well then, he must be the father of antisemitism.

Say what you want about his writing style or even his beliefs, but don't act like the jews had a special place of hatred in his heart. This is the important part about reading someone in context. All you have to do is actually read his stuff, but it seems like many people in the middle ages through today choose not to do that.

ETA: Here is how he addressed wealthy Christians. Does this make him the founder of communism?
Quote:

You have not shared your wealth with the poor, but kept it all for yourselfyou have robbed and murdered. The poor man is dying at your gate, and you are stuffing your belly

Luxury has ruined everything… it is the mother of adultery, the root of all heresies, the origin of lawlessness. It produces not men but beasts

A man who is rich and unmerciful is worse than a beast. If you do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, you have no place in the Kingdom

ETA 2: Here are some of his harshest critiques of Christians espousing heresy:

Quote:

It is better to fall among wild beasts than to fall among heretics. Wild beasts may devour the body, but heretics corrupt the soul and drag it into hell

The heretic is not simply diseased; he is a wild beast… nay, a demon in human form, disguised with a cloak of virtue

They are dogs, not sheep; they bark against the truth, they gnaw at the faithful, they drag others into their pit

Flee the heretic as you would flee a plague. Do not even greet him. For his words are like the bite of a serpenteven if he speaks the name of Christ

I can keep going if it's helpful. There a number of places where he says heretics are worse than Jews.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, how lovely and reassuring. Jews are just equivalent to adulterers to him. Oh, and all responsible as God-killers. You aren't refuting my point.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But you're better than heretics, so you got that going for you
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nooooo. I'm showing that he thought heretics are lower than Jews and I'm showing that the language he used towards Jews he also used towards other Christians, pagans and pretty much anyone out of line with Christian doctrine. Maybe we have different definitions of anti-semitism but it's typically a specific discrimination reserved for the Jews alone. If he is using the exact same language for Jew and non-Jew alike, he isn't anti-semitic. He's anti-basically everyone.

But how can he be anti-everyone if he advocates for loving everyone, including our enemies.


Quote:

"Nothing makes us so like God as being ready to forgive the wicked and wrongdoers. When we love those who hate us, we are imitating God




He is arguing FOR the right doctrine and right living and AGAINST wrong doctrine and wrong living. This wasn't some sort of ethnic argument, and couldn't have been. Ethnic Jews are at the foundation of Christianity. His successor as bishop was of Jewish descent. This is a doctrinal issue. If having doctrinal disagreements with another religion makes you anti-X, that would mean you are very clearly anti-Christian and must hold hatred in your heart for all Christians. I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with that, which is why you shouldn't accuse Chrysostom of it.

If you want to paint Chrysostom as some crazy Jew hater, you're welcome to. It just requires you to ignore the facts and choose personal affront instead.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Huh? He repeatedly accuses Jews as people and individuals of all manor of terrible behaviors and practices to include indecency, robbery, murder, even human sacrifice. He also calls Jews literal demons and invokes the charge of deicide. His charges were extremely popular in the Middle Ages and used to support all manor of antisemitic acts and coupled with Luther's writings by the Nazis. It went far beyond mere polemic and was deeply aimed at the character of the individual Jew.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.