A step into darkness: Historical Judeo-Christian relations in the early church, does it persist in the modern era?

I recently took a "plunge" into the Jewish SE and noticed a very strong anti-christian sentiment from some of the active and "vocal" members. Some of this was my own reaction, but when viewed by others they agreed (in varying amounts) that it was anti-christian. To be fair, they are supposed to not allow the temptation of idolatry even start at all. (To the point of not even enjoying the physical beauty of a church) They view the New Testament as "sly" and "sneaky" full of references to make the jewish people seem lesser or cursed. As well as many other things. Some of this was likely due to a generalization against Christians, because of bad people who twisted scripture one way or the other. That type of thing does happen and it is invariably a regrettable fruit of having no spiritual guidance. And as much fun as it would be to "rip apart" the protestants or the "crusaders" that is not going to help anyone either. (And yes, nazi's were evil, stalin was also evil and worse, ho hum, off topic) I can understand the original animosity from Jews towards Christians. After all we are "jewish heretics" from their perspective. And that part is perfectly understandable. And I can understand the early church being very hostile towards jewish religious leaders, considering they had been hunted by them before that, and they outright rejected the Messiah. But... I mean... oh just read some of it and maybe it makes a little bit of sense why they feel like they have been "persecuted" for 2000+ years. > St John Chrysostom: Adversus Jedaeos (Against the Jews) Homily 1. > I > > (4) And so I wanted again today to engage in that contest. *For if the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the God of all.* But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers. > >(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with **the Judaizing disease**. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, *some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions*; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. > >(6) And so it is that I hasten to anticipate this danger and prevent it. This is what physicians do. They first check the diseases which are most urgent and acute. But the danger from this sickness is very closely related to the danger from the other; since the Anomians impiety is akin to that of the Jews, my present conflict is akin to my former one. And there is a kingship because the Jews and the Anomians make the same accusation. And what charges do the Jews make? That He called God His own Father and so made Himself equal to God. The Anomians also make this charge-I should not say they make this a charge; they even blot out the phrase "equal to God" and what it connotes, by their resolve to reject it even if they do not physically erase it. > >II > >But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. *When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness.* We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. **They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness.** From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs. Note "The Root" referred to above is from the common practice of grafting, branches can be grafted onto different roots and different fruit bearing trees. Similar to this verse: Romans 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that **it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you**. >III > >Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons. > >(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. N**o Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?** > >(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, **who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.** But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. Now I get that St. Chrysostom was... upset to put it mildly. And I think I have not done us much favors by quoting it. But to my understanding he is not saying that he "held a nation" or "held a faith" responsible, and that is not how they used the word "jew" and "race" 2000 years ago either... But given how ... inflammatory this subject can be. It is hard to find any proper information, because if you search for it you overwhelmingly get results based on the modern climate. Ultimately the question I have are the following: 1. Is christianity in the modern sense "anti-semitic"? I don't believe so. 2. Is early christianity "anti-jew"? I feel like it has to be... A defense for St. John Chrysostom, the most outspoken church father against "jews" would be nice. But that is a historical issue. Answers should include your personal theological inclination at the start or end, so things are clear and easy to understand. (aka: which church are you from?) Note: I did not pick a particular denomination, this is because I am out of tags. Answers from the perspective of churches who have apostolic succession are preferred, but if a protestant has an answer I won't refuse.