A question about modern Judaism

[Kaninchen]

I’m not sure if your comments were directed specifically at me or just the discussion at hand.

The ‘discussion’ at hand.

Dialogue implies a conversation, rather than mere confrontation and that’s rather important to bear in mind here.

The thing is that, once both sides of conversations like this have stated and explained their positions, going beyond that moves into a different kind of territory - the kind of territory that the modern version of CAF really isn’t designed for.

So, either we avoid needless provocation, or we’re stuck with ‘dialogues of the deaf’ where people talk at one another rather than to one another - which ends up just being another way of ignoring.

 

[ltwin]

As I pointed out, Jews do not need to believe in God.

I really don’t understand this point that keeps being brought up. There are Christians by baptism who also don’t believe in God. And?

 

[Crusader13]

The Catholic Church teaches that Jews still hold a distinct place as God’s original Chosen People, that they have not abandoned God, and that God has not abandoned them nor revoked his Covenant with the People of Israel.

What do you believe the Church teaches with regards to that statement about the old covenant? What does not revoking the old covenant mean?

I read that document that you posted a link to several times.

It’s worth noting what it says:

Paragraph 31:

For the Christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be one single covenant history of God with humanity… Through the prophets God in turn promises a new and eternal covenant (cf. Is 55:3; 61:8; Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:22-28). Each of these covenants incorporates the previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. That is also true for the New Covenant which for Christians is the final eternal covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant, or as Paul expresses it, the “Yes” and “Amen” to “all that God has promised” (2 Cor 1:20). The Church as the renewed people of God has been elected by God without conditions. The Church is the definitive and unsurpassable locus of the salvific action of God.

Also

Paragraph 35:

Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith. Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. So too does the confession of the one God, the God of Israel, who through his revelation in Jesus Christ has become totally manifest as the God of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the God of Israel as the one God (cf. Is 56:1-8).

 

[PapyrusDouay]

What do you believe the Church teaches with regards to that statement about the old covenant? What does not revoking the old covenant mean?

I read that document that you posted a link to several times.

Yes, you quoted some fine passages. Nothing I said contradicts that. But you conveniently didn’t quote this part:

“ 39. Because it was such a theological breakthrough, the Conciliar text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. An important example of over–interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that God made with his people Israel perdures and is never invalidated. Although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into “Nostra aetate” (No.4). This statement was instead first made with full clarity by Saint Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God … and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible” (No.3). The same conviction is stated also in the Catechism of the Church in 1993: "The Old Covenant has never been revoked" (121).”

Take special note of the last sentence RE: CCC#121. If you’re not sure what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is, I’d be happy to explain.

As for what I believe… I believe in the Magisterium. And I don’t find it difficult to reconcile “old” and “new” into “one”

 

[Crusader13]

Bill_B_NY:

As I pointed out, Jews do not need to believe in God.

I really don’t understand this point that keeps being brought up. There are Christians by baptism who also don’t believe in God. And?

Well technically belief in God does not make one Christian. That would require more of a proper understanding and belief in Jesus Christ as the divine son of God as Lord and Savior.

But to answer your question, the Bible is pretty clear what happens to those who turn from belief in God.

So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
Romans 11:20-22

Who were the natural branches that were cut off?

Also in Hebrews

Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,
Hebrews 3:12-14

So if we fall away from the living God we are cut off. And what happens to those who are cut off from the kingdom, where do they go; because it’s not heaven.

 

[Crusader13]

It wasn’t out of convenience that I didn’t quote the other sections. The entire document deals primarily with the dialogue between Christians and Jews and how we are supposed to share the truth of our faith with them without being offensive or misguided in the truths of our faith.

The old covenant not being revoked and the new covenant being the fulfillment of the old is two ways of looking at the same reality.

The faithful Jews who accepted Christ and entered the Church, didn’t stop being Jewish. The whole point of the new covenant was to illustrate that the Holiness of God was no longer just restricted to one chosen people, inside of one temple, located in a single geographical area or nation.

There are still Jews who exist today and it is for their conversion that we continually pray. Because the Bible says that is what must take place.

And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Romans 11:23-25

As the members of the church it is our command to go forth and make disciples of all nations, which means bringing in the rest of the Gentile nations into the kingdom. Only then will the Jews return into the kingdom as well. However it’s hard to insist to others that being part of the new covenant is necessary when we keep telling members of other faiths that they don’t need Jesus Christ.

 

[billsherman]

The rabbinical/Talmudic religion that followed after that was not something that pleased God, and has always been an anti-Christ movement. We ourselves can fall into the same sins as the Jews did - we always have to watch and be humble and not point fingers. But there is nothing to admire in the satanic spirit that hated Jesus and wanted him crucified.

How is this anything but antisemitism? The Church not only doesn’t teach this, it teaches precisely the opposite: “the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God.”

Please educate yourself about the proper Church teacheing on Jewish people: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ts/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

They were trying to escape the punishment from God. So the rabbis secretly went to their enemy (the Roman emperor) who was in the process of killing their own Jewish people and struck up a bargain to try to save themselves. The rabbinical/Talmudic religion that followed after that was not something that pleased God, and has always been an anti-Christ movement. We ourselves can fall into the same sins as the Jews did - we always have to watch and be humble and not point fingers. But there is nothing to admire in the satanic spirit that hated Jesus and wanted him crucified.

I am referring to those who escaped the seige and particularily one man who was smuggled out , did not go to his enemy, but settled down and had men come to him and gather as a study and prayer group , This group began looking at the shape Judaism could possibly take as the Temple was destroyed and people were killed.

I will put up some links about this man and the group he attracted to him when I remember his name. It is said he was smuggled out of the seige with corpses, on a wagon. This was done because of the realisation that for Judaism to continue, great minds were going to be needed to bring it through the destruction and forward.

People began calling him and his group Rabbis. There were some incredibly faith filled and brave martyrs at this time, one man being skun alive by the Romans. It is both a tragic and defining period in history that occurred alongside the growth of the early Christian faith.

 

[ltwin]

Well technically belief in God does not make one Christian.

Well, if we’re using this fact to make a point about Judaism, why can’t the same points be made about Christianity? If you can be an atheist Jew by birth and an atheist Christian by baptism, I’m not seeing much of a difference. Why is this relevant regarding modern Judaism?

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I will put up some links about this man and the group he attracted to him when I remember his name. It is said he was smuggled out of the seige with corpses, on a wagon. This was done because of the realisation that for Judaism to continue, great minds were going to be needed to bring it through the destruction and forward.

Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai

 

[Gab123]

What is known as Judaism today is not the same religion of 1st century Judaism. The Jewish religion at the time of Jesus revolved around Temple worship, the priesthood and animal sacrifice. After the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, (fulfilling Christ’s prophecy of its destruction), the Jews were scattered. In the wake of so many Jews converting to Christianity, which was pleading like wildfire, a group of Pharisees got together in the year 90AD at the council of Jamnia to try to make sense of how to go forward without temple sacrifice, and how to stop Jews from converting to Jesus Christ. That was the birth of what is known as rabbinic Judaism, which is the Talmud. The 1st century Jewish religion ceased to exist in the 1st century with the destruction of the temple by the Romans.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Talmud is a collection of writings which besmirches and blasphemes Christ and steers Jews away from Christianity. Among the nuggets of ungodly wisdom are accusations that Jesus was a sorcerer, and is in hell stewing in a stew of excrement (I hate to even write it). Reading the Talmud one can sense a dramatic difference than when reading the Old Testament inspired writings. Rabbinic Judaism is a man-made religion dating back to 90 AD, and the reason why Protestant Bibles only have 66 books instead of the complete 73 as found in the Catholic Bible, is because Martin Luther based his cannon of scripture on what 16th century European Jews used, not knowing that at Jamnia in 90AD the Pharisees had done away with the Septuagint, which included the Book of Wisdom, which has the shocking prophecy of the suffering messiah. (Wisdom 2:12-20) that converts were pointing to as a clear prophecy of Christ.

While Christianity fulfilled the Judaism of the Torah and the prophets, the Pharisees went on to start a new religion. Jewish convert Roy Schoeman has a good presentation about it here:

 

[anendlesswaltz]

I read an article a few months ago. Here it is if you would like to read it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/13/523770582/goats-are-rescued-on-their-way-to-being-sacrificed-in-jerusalem

In addition to the already mentioned fact that the temple is gone, apparently it is not allowed at least in Jerusalem where the muslims and jews are in conflict over holy sites. For the jews to sacrifice for passover as directed on the temple mount, the article says, it would offend the muslims because they consider the same site a holy site because their prophet muhammad was said to have ascended to heaven there.

 

[billsherman]

What is known as Judaism today is not the same religion of 1st century Judaism.

It is the same religion. It has experienced changes. But everything changes over 2,000 years.

As has been stated by others, you need to very careful when going down this path. You can argue that Judaism has experienced change over time - every religion on Earth changes over time - but you cannot realistically argue that Judaism itself dates from the first century. You also cannot realistically make an argument that it was formed in reaction to Christianity. There is no historical evidence for either of those positions, and they are often taken by antisemites who use the arguments as a way to claim modern Jews aren’t “real” Jews. That is false. It is also anti-Catholic.

 

[Crusader13]

Well, if we’re using this fact to make a point about Judaism, why can’t the same points be made about Christianity? If you can be an atheist Jew by birth and an atheist Christian by baptism, I’m not seeing much of a difference. Why is this relevant regarding modern Judaism?

Because Christianity isn’t an ethnicity. One can be Jewish, genetically, without adhering to any of the religious beliefs.

If someone is baptized into Christianity, they can lose their salvation. Likewise, being Jewish because of your ancestry, does not mean that you’re automatically going to Heaven.

they are often taken by antisemites who use the arguments as a way to claim modern Jews aren’t “real” Jews. That is false. It is also anti-Catholic.

I can’t speak for anyone else’s personal views, but I don’t believe that anyone is claiming that ethnic Jews were wiped out in AD 70. The religion has certainly undergone changes, but that’s not to say that modern Jews aren’t Jewish genetically.

The religious aspect of what Judaism accomplished under the Old covenant is what is being discussed. There is no longer any need for the old covenant, because the New Covenant brought everything into its fulfillment.

 

[ltwin]

What is known as Judaism today is not the same religion of 1st century Judaism.

Well, that’s like saying the America of today is not the same America as in 1776.

The Jewish religion at the time of Jesus revolved around Temple worship, the priesthood and animal sacrifice.

Unless you were one of those Jews who lived far away from the Holy Land and could neither visit the Temple nor make sacrifices.

After the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, (fulfilling Christ’s prophecy of its destruction), the Jews were scattered.

Jews were already “scattered.” There were Jewish communities all around the Mediterranean world. The only thing that changed in 70 AD was that the Romans destroyed the Temple. Later Jewish revolts led the Romans to destroy Judea as a political entity.

 

[billsherman]

The religious aspect of what Judaism accomplished under the Old covenant is what is being discussed. There is no longer any need for the old covenant, because the New Covenant brought everything into its fulfillment.

Jews get to make that decision, not anyone else. Christians don’t get to impose their theological views on Judaism anymore than Buddhists get to impose theirs on Christianity.

I think you might be rather offended if a Muslim showed up here and wrote something along the lines of “Christianity is a corrupted version of the revelations given before Muhammad, and so there is no longer any need for it.”

You view of Judaism is also out of step with the Church.

 

[Niblo]

According to the Qur’an, both Judaism and Christianity are valid Faiths; and those followers who believe in the Exalted, and who do good deeds, are assured of Heaven. This is the Exalted’s promise; and He does not renege on His promises.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

False. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New. The Jews can either accept baptism or go to hell.

Learn your Old Testament. Learn what a Covenant is. There are 5 Covenants in the Old Testament, not 1.

Your last sentance is flagable under CAF rules. It also goes against Catholic teaching, refresh yourself on Catholic teaching on interactions with Jewish people.

 

[TMC]

Really… ? Can you show us a Catholic Source to That?

Rabbinal Judaism of Today which connects with the Talmud of centuries AD later is not what was practiced by Jews of Jesus’ Time

I think you’re misunderstanding Catholic teaching and confusing ethnic Judaism with the new religious Judaism. I use New in the context of the Judaism which arose after the destruction of the Temple.

Here is a Vatican document that provides an excellent summary of the Church’s teaching on Judaism: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...nd_New_Testament_and_the_Old_and_New_Covenant

As that document explains, the Jews of today are not practicing a “religion that is not from God,” as has been alleged in this thread. Nor are they fake Jews, or not real Jews, or not the Jews of the Old Testament, or however one may want to frame it. Jewish practices have changed in 2,000 years, just as Catholic practices have changed in that time, but Jews of today are still members of the same religion practiced by Joseph and Mary, and the other Jews of Christ’s day.

Again, the idea that today’s Jews are not real Jews has been a historical excuse for persecution, and is not consistent with the Church which teaches that Jews are our elder brothers in faith. The same is true for the idea that Jews have rejected God. If you cannot see how those kinds of accusations have contributed to persecution then you are just not paying attention to history (or Church teaching).

 

[EndTimes]

As that document explains, the Jews of today are not practicing a “religion that is not from God,” as has been alleged in this thread. Nor are they fake Jews, or not real Jews, or not the Jews of the Old Testament, or however one may want to frame it. Jewish practices have changed in 2,000 years, just as Catholic practices have changed in that time, but Jews of today are still members of the same religion practiced by Joseph and Mary, and the other Jews of Christ’s day.

Yet I do distinquish the changes in practices from yesteryear(s) to Today

That said _ yes - (in brief)

It is wrong to accuse all Jews of having been involved in the Crucifixion
It is wrong to hate or harm any Jew because they’re Jewish
It is wrong to think some Jews never involved in persecution of Christians
Jews who reject(ed) Jesus are by definition Not my elder brothers of Faith.
To those who follow Messiah, JESUS is the True continuance of e.g., Moses…