A Messianic Jew's interesting arguments against Catholicism

[CatholicSoxFan]

+JMJ+

I’d say show me in the Bible where its says when it will be fulfilled

Well no, this is a de jure objection, which means it basically says how do you explain this if Catholicism is true. Drew would probably argue that since he believes in sola scriptura, he can deduce from the lack of mention of any fulfillment of Christ’s covenant that it won’t happen, but that our epistemology puts us in the predicament of not being able to know if our covenant has been. And again, this objection works from the temporary assumption that our epistemology is correct, so criticizing his won’t do anything here.

I’d say he’s wrong. The Sanhedrin’s authority was used to initiate the Passion of Jesus Christ; that was its purpose.

Well isn’t there still a problem here? The Sanhedrin didn’t initiate the Passion just because, they condemned Jesus as a blasphemer.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I would say that it most certainly is the Church’s book. It was written by our Church, for our Church. It was never intended to take the place of the Church however, which is what your evangelical tries to do. Just because Protestantism tried to tear the Bible away from the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean that it was effective or accomplished. Therefore, his argument from tradition is also of no use, since he neither speaks for Jewish Tradition NOR Catholic tradition, but merely argues in league with the Protestants who have torn the Book from its Church (but with a Jewish twist.) His arguments are nothing more than Protestant arguments.

He has put himself in with the same crowd as Mormonism, JWs, Socinians, etc. etc. Just another weird cult that uses the NT as a launching point for something entirely heterodox, novel, new, and weird.

This is just an assertion though, and he’d just come back with the same objection.

 

[jimmy]

I am curious whether he thinks the apostles were infallible in their pronouncements. It seems he does by looking at his reference to the ‘Galatian heresy’. We’re the apostles infallible in their rejection of the law? Either Peter and Paul had an authority to interpret the law and the scriptures (which is implied in the rejection of the law) in an official way, or they are liers and not to be trusted. If Paul had authority to interpret the scriptures mesianicdrews whole argument falls apart. If Paul didnt have the authority then he was a deciever.

 

[InspiritCarol]

I would say that it most certainly is the Church’s book. It was written by our Church, for our Church. It was never intended to take the place of the Church however, which is what your evangelical tries to do. Just because Protestantism tried to tear the Bible away from the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean that it was effective or accomplished. Therefore, his argument from tradition is also of no use, since he neither speaks for Jewish Tradition NOR Catholic tradition, but merely argues in league with the Protestants who have torn the Book from its Church (but with a Jewish twist.) His arguments are nothing more than Protestant arguments.

He has put himself in with the same crowd as Mormonism, JWs, Socinians, etc. etc. Just another weird cult that uses the NT as a launching point for something entirely heterodox, novel, new, and weird.

I’m shocked that anyone has continued this.
This hits the nail on the head except “Jewish” should be in quotes.
Nothing shown in this individual’s arguments represent any real knowledge of actual Jewish culture.
And is it too much to ask for citations???

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I am curious whether he thinks the apostles were infallible in their pronouncements. It seems he does by looking at his reference to the ‘Galatian heresy’. We’re the apostles infallible in their rejection of the law? Either Peter and Paul had an authority to interpret the law and the scriptures (which is implied in the rejection of the law) in an official way, or they are liers and not to be trusted. If Paul had authority to interpret the scriptures mesianicdrews whole argument falls apart. If Paul didnt have the authority then he was a deciever.

Yeah I think that’s a good point. I remember Devin Rose making a similar argument in one of his podcasts.

 

[jimmy]

The Catholic Church doesn’t argue that there were additional teachings of Paul. Tradition isn’t supposed to be an addition to scripture, but rather the unfolding of it.

No one has ever claimed the fathers have to speak with one voice on anything for their ideas to be true. There are various interpretations of Matt16 in the fathers and they are all true. No catholic should have a problem with that.

Similarly there were various conceptions of Christ and of God, but the reality is that the fathers only wrote about things in depth when they became an issue. The nature of Christ wasn’t fully understood or fully explained in the first century (although their faith was just as complete). Over time a line of thought developed that points in a direction of who Jesus was.

 

[katcecelia]

Ok so i’m kinda behind on this thread, but my uncle called yesterday…
Oh yes, He is a “Messianic ‘Jew.’”
I seriously don’t want to watch this guy’s videos… I already listened to some tapes my uncle sent. My uncle said something about the refugees on the Spanish ships being secret Messianic ‘jews’, who still today practice their ‘Judaism.’ He said some other strange things, but after what this man proposes I see where my uncle is learning from…
My uncle long ago left the Church, attended a Baptist seminary, joined a four square church, left that, and has been obviously lost for some time.
What disturbed me the most was when he denied the Trinity… Does anyone know if all Messianic ‘Jewish’ communities fall into the Sabellian heresy (One God, Jesus is the same person as the Father, all just different manifestations of God) or is this particular to the community he is in right now?

Any any way to argue with him that may work? Mom is just going to send him a Catechism, some Early Fathers’ writings and a lot of Prayer…

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Ok so i’m kinda behind on this thread, but my uncle called yesterday…
Oh yes, He is a “Messianic ‘Jew.’”
I seriously don’t want to watch this guy’s videos… I already listened to some tapes my uncle sent. My uncle said something about the refugees on the Spanish ships being secret Messianic ‘jews’, who still today practice their ‘Judaism.’ He said some other strange things, but after what this man proposes I see where my uncle is learning from…
My uncle long ago left the Church, attended a Baptist seminary, joined a four square church, left that, and has been obviously lost for some time.
What disturbed me the most was when he denied the Trinity… Does anyone know if all Messianic ‘Jewish’ communities fall into the Sabellian heresy (One God, Jesus is the same person as the Father, all just different manifestations of God) or is this particular to the community he is in right now?

Any any way to argue with him that may work? Mom is just going to send him a Catechism, some Early Fathers’ writings and a lot of Prayer…

Well I can’t speak on behalf of all Messianic Jews, but the particular one who made the video that this thread is about is definitely a Trinitarian:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD47C7FC662D2C9C2
youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg

 

[porthos11]

Take Evangelical Protestant, throw in a yarmulke and prayer shawls, and speak a smattering of Hebrew in place of standard English (e.g. Yeshua for Jesus, Ruach ha’Kodesh for Holy Spirit"). Mix well and voila! Messianic Jew.

The state of Israel is smart to them. They are Christians, and rightfully ineligible under the Law of Return.

 

[TimothyH]

Take Evangelical Protestant, throw in a yarmulke and prayer shawls, and speak a smattering of Hebrew in place of standard English (e.g. Yeshua for Jesus, Ruach ha’Kodesh for Holy Spirit"). Mix well and voila! Messianic Jew.

I have been to their worship. There is a lot of truth to this.

-Tim-

 

[steve_b]

Well, he’d of course say that the NT isn’t our book,

If the OT saved, then there is no need for a NT…right? No need for Jesus, His Church, His sacraments, His promises, all everybody who wanted to be saved would do is convert to Judaism, follow the 613 Mosaic laws, and that’s that… True ? or is that False?
CS:

and point out again his case that the evidence for continuing rabbinic Jewish tradition is better than our case, and that since we both reject the former, that we should reject the latter as well.

There is NO Jew more rabbinic than Jesus
There is no Jew more Jewish than Jesus
there is no higher honor in Jewish tradition than to be “son of David”
Any other Jew but Jesus claim to be “son of God and prove it”?

certainly YOU know how to answer that guy…right?

 

[ahs]

Well isn’t there still a problem here? The Sanhedrin didn’t initiate the Passion just because, they condemned Jesus as a blasphemer.

No, there’s no problem here. They condemned Christ because they thought He was claiming to be God. They thought, erronously, that it was blashphemy because they didn’t believe in Him. They didn’t believe in Him because, as Christ pointed out, they didn’t know God. They didn’t know God because God, as Scripture prohesies for us several times, blinded them to the Truth.

The difference between them and the Catholic Church? Where God promised to blind their hearts, Christ promised to send His Spirit to the Apostles, the Church, to lead it in ALL Truth for ALL time. “MessianicDrew” has no argument unless he blantantly ignores the entirety of the OT prophesies, and Christ’s explicit Words.

 

[TimothyH]

No, there’s no problem here. They condemned Christ because they thought He was claiming to be God. They thought, erronously, that it was blashphemy because they didn’t believe in Him. They didn’t believe in Him because, as Christ pointed out, they didn’t know God. They didn’t know God because God, as Scripture prohesies for us several times, blinded them to the Truth.

The difference between them and the Catholic Church? Where God promised to blind their hearts, Christ promised to send His Spirit to the Apostles, the Church, to lead it in ALL Truth for ALL time. “MessianicDrew” has no argument unless he blantantly ignores the entirety of the OT prophesies, and Christ’s explicit Words.

God did not blind them to the truth. God wishes all men to know him.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
(Luke 4:18)

The blinded themselves because of the hardness of their own heart. That is not God’s doing but their own.

-Tim-

 

[ahs]

God did not blind them to the truth. God wishes all men to know him.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
(Luke 4:18)

The blinded themselves because of the hardness of their own heart. That is not God’s doing but their own.

-Tim-

Yep…I spoke in ignorance. Their blindness was of their own doing.