Are Jews saved?

[Kaninchen]

And as Kaninchen appears to be saying, there’s not even a consensus as to what constitutes salvation since not all Jews believe in the afterlife

Salvation is a Christian concept.

 

[Della]

Salvation is a Christian concept.

Exactly. Although, it might be true to say that it’s not a Jewish concept now. An argument could be made that the Pharisees, of which Saul (our St. Paul) was one, had a belief in the resurrection of the dead, and so the kernel of the Christian belief existed among some 1st century Jews.

 

[Kaninchen]

Exactly. Although, it might be true to say that it’s not a Jewish concept now. An argument could be made that the Pharisees, of which Saul (our St. Paul) was one, had a belief in the resurrection of the dead, and so the kernel of the Christian belief existed among some 1st century Jews.

That’s not what I meant and the belief continues though much less defined than in Christianity (if there’s something to be rowed about, we’ll row about it). It’s the idea of the individual being ‘saved from’ something that’s a Christian thing.

 

[GerardMajella]

Rather few.

Why would the Gentiles need ‘saving’?

I was referring to a specific rabbi, and should have clarified. Go hear to read about Rabbi Jacob Emden’s unique perspective on Christianity:

auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html

“But it is as I have said earlier–that the writers of the Gospels never meant to say that the Nazarene came to abolish Judaism, but only that he came to establish a religion for the Gentiles from that time onward. Nor was it new, but actually ancient; they being the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, which were forgotten. The Apostles of the Nazarene then established them anew. However, those born as Jews, or circumcised as converts to Judaism (Ex. 12:49; one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger) are obligated to observe all commandments of the Torah without exception.”

 

[Kaninchen]

I was referring to a specific rabbi, and should have clarified. Go hear to read about Rabbi Jacob Emden’s unique perspective on Christianity:

auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html

“But it is as I have said earlier–that the writers of the Gospels never meant to say that the Nazarene came to abolish Judaism, but only that he came to establish a religion for the Gentiles from that time onward. Nor was it new, but actually ancient; they being the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, which were forgotten. The Apostles of the Nazarene then established them anew. However, those born as Jews, or circumcised as converts to Judaism (Ex. 12:49; one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger) are obligated to observe all commandments of the Torah without exception.”

It’s the ‘saving’ that’s the problem.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If a Jew believes in God the Father…

…and if Christians believe that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are also “God” (as in the concept of the “Trinity”)…

…then doesn’t that make us all worshiping the same God?

No, it does not. Jews are in essence Unitarians - they believe in one Being and one Person of God. Christians are Trinitarians - they believe in one Being of God revealed through Three Persons. Jews deny the Son and the individual Personhood of the Holy Spirit (if we want to clarify that). On this note, I’d like to take a moment to quote someone:

I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father.

These sound like what I’ve been arguing all along, but do you know who said these words? Basil the Great, a man considered a saint in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. In other words, a saint of two ancient churches would be on my side on this issue.

However, let’s turn away from that and return to the word of God. Let’s reiterate what was pointed out earlier regarding religious Jews: they deny the Son. What did Christ say about that?

“So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” [Matthew 10:32-33]

Those who deny Christ will be denied by Him before the Father. Even if you want to say, “But but…Jews believe in the Father, don’t they?” What did Christ say was the way to the Father?

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:6; ESV]

Christ is the only way to the Father, and no one comes to the Father but through Him. You might say, “But but…don’t the Jews have the Law and the Prophets?” What did Christ say about that?

“…and you do not have his word [the Father’s] abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent [the Son].” [John 5:38]

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” [John 5:45-46]

It is that Law and the Prophets which will condemn unbelieving Jews, because in them they had the Messianic prophecies and they ignored them all. Their rejection of the Son will be their rejection of the Father, because as Christ Himself said plainly and simply the only way to the Father is through the Son.

Some might even interject here, “But don’t some Jews believe in a resurrection?” Let’s go with that - what did our Lord say about that?

Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” [John 11:24-26]

Christ is the resurrection and the life, and belief in Him will give one eternal life. Rejection of Him does not win eternal life.

Now I know that many will simply reiterate ad nauseum the argument, “Oh you’re just pulling scripture together!” The fact is I’ve quoted relevant scripture and have quoted it within its proper context, and despite my request to be shown by naysayers how I have done otherwise, I have not seen any attempt to refute what these passages say. Likewise, I have yet to see anyone taking the opposite case quoting scripture - only personal opinion. What does it say about your personal theology when you have to run away from scripture and ignore anything that scripture says contradictory to your own personal beliefs? It says that liberalism and universalism are very much alive here, and we are ignoring the commands of God and the words of scripture for man-made post-modern tradition. And that, for all intents and purposes, is truly a sad thing.

 

[GerardMajella]

It’s the ‘saving’ that’s the problem.

See the link to Rabbi Jacob Emden. I utilized a poor choice of words. Let me re-phrase: Some rabbis, such as the late Rabbi Emden, believed that Jesus came to re-establish the Noahide laws for the Gentiles, not to abolish the Torah.

It is that Law and the Prophets which will condemn unbelieving Jews, because in them they had the Messianic prophecies and they ignored them all.

You articulate the Catholic point of view very well. And here is the counter-argument from the Jewish Sage, Maimonides:

“As for Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be the anointed one and was condemned by the Sanhedrin. Daniel had already prophesied about him, thus: ‘And the children of your people’s rebels shall raise themselves to set up prophecy and will stumble.’ Can there be a bigger stumbling block than this? All the Prophets said that the anointed one saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for his thoughts and ways are unlike ours. All these matters of Yeshu of Nazareth and of Muhammad who stood up after him are only intended to pave the way for the anointed king, and to mend the entire world to worship God together, thus: ‘For then I shall turn a clear tongue to the nations to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship him with one shoulder.’”

“How is this? The entire world had become filled with the issues of the anointed one and of the Torah and the Laws, and these issues had spread out unto faraway islands and among many nations uncircumcised in the heart, and they discuss these issues and the Torah’s laws. These say: These Laws were true but are already defunct in these days, and do not rule for the following generations; whereas the other ones say: There are secret layers in them and they are not to be treated literally, and the Messiah had come and revealed their secret meanings. But when the anointed king will truly rise and succeed and will be raised and uplifted, they all immediately turn about and know that their fathers inherited falsehood, and their prophets and ancestors led them astray.”

 

[Zooey]

I asked once asked my priest about the salvation of non-Christians.

He said the truth is revealed to us when we die. If non-Christians accepts the truth and are repentant of sins, they will go to Purgatory, where they are prepared for Heaven.

He gave the example of when Christ breathed His last breath on the cross. Scripture reports that souls rose. Christ descended. He went to preach the Gospel to the dead and when they accepted it, the gates of Heaven were opened and they all went there with Him.

He also gave the example of the two sinners He was crucified with. One rebuked Jesus, but when dying, the other asked Jesus to remember him when He entered His kingdom. Jesus told the sinner that he will be in paradise.

I wonder if God will accept the repentance of non-Christians who actively rebuke Christianity. But luckily, the majority of non-Christians aren’t like this- if they knew the truth, they would accept it and God is the Just Judge and Merciful Saviour.

He sounds like a very wise man.

Actually I didn’t choose “a verse.” I’ve chosen several verses, coupling that post you quoted with my post at the top of the second page. They all have the same context. If somehow I have taken those verses out of context, please feel free to exegete them and show me how.

The problem is that, in all due respect, the context you are using is the context of your own preconceptions.
You have a right to do so, of course. Expecting that the God of the Universe is required to conform to said preconceptions??

That’s not what I meant and the belief continues though much less defined than in Christianity (if there’s something to be rowed about, we’ll row about it). It’s the idea of the individual being ‘saved from’ something that’s a Christian thing.

Would “saved for” be better?? As in, hoping for an inheritance from God???
Realizing that I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the word “saved” due to its usage (IMNSHO, mis-usage, actually) by one particular “brand” of Protestant Christianity??

---

In any case, the question is not whether any one person or group of people is saved; of course they aren’t! What we are all doing (Christian and Jew, and whoever else may be reading these words) is “working out our salvation with fear and trembling”.
We may hope to be saved. But, of course, hope is a greatly neglected virtue in this day and time…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The problem is that, in all due respect, the context you are using is the context of your own preconceptions.
You have a right to do so, of course. Expecting that the God of the Universe is required to conform to said preconceptions??

I am simply repeating what scripture says. If I have used them “in the context of my own preconceptions,” I will ask you what I have asked others and have yet to receive: please she me how I have done so. Exegete these passages I have used to show me I have used them in the wrong context. As it stands, when our Lord says that any one who denies Him will be denied before the Father, that He is the only way to the Father, and that He (and therefore only He) is the Resurrection and belief in Him (not unbelief in Him) leads to eternal life after dead…well, those are pretty clear words.

In any case, I have been merely quoting scripture. I have not been arguing “Well I think…” or “Well my priest said…”. Therefore I don’t see how I could possibly be arguing from preconceptions. So again, if I have distorted scripture somehow, please show me how I have done so. For people to simply repeat “Oh that’s your opinion!” or “That’s distorting scripture!” over and over again ad nauseum is not argumentation.

 

[Zooey]

As it stands, when our Lord says that any one who denies Him will be denied before the Father, that He is the only way to the Father, and that He (and therefore only He) is the Resurrection and belief in Him (not unbelief in Him) leads to eternal life after dead…well, those are pretty clear words.

But what denial is He speaking of?
When does this denial happen? How? Where??
When & where must this belief come into being?
What does it mean to believe? (“The demons believe and tremble”, after all.).
What occurs between life and death, between Heaven & hell?

You see, these may be:shrug: “pretty clear words”. The problem is, that it is not clear enough…unless we come to the text with some idea of what we may find there.

I’m not simply being pedantic. (Although, teacher’s daughter that I am, I recognize that such comes naturally for me).
I am pointing out that we spend altogether too much time talking about faith, and as a result, we are in danger of forgetting that hope and love are equal partners in this enterprise.
And I think that the danger of trusting in our faith runs us the real danger of jettisoning both hope & love.

I also would not care to stand before the God of the Universe and the Saviour of all, and try to explain why, having been told that I will be judged in the same measure that I judge- I would not care, I say, to explain why on earth I presumed to take it upon myslef to declare that this or that group of persons is or is not going to be saved.
I don’t know that. You don’t know that. **None **of us know that.
We would be, IMO, wise to remember that. Will not the Maker of the world do rightly??

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m sorry, but answering a question with more questions is not an answer, if anything it is simply a non sequitor. “It is not clear enough”? I apologize again, but that’s absurd. Besides the fact that it is running away from the responsibility of exegesis (you did not even pretend to deal with the text), it is also nonsensical with what is said. When Christ says, “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven,” that is clear enough. Likewise, when our Lord says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” that is likewise clear. To say it isn’t clear with baited questions that don’t even respond to what is in the text is to avoid the reality of what is said.

Imagine if, as a young boy, my father had told me, “Don’t touch the hot stove,” then I disobeyed and hurt myself, and when my father asked why I said, “Well you weren’t clear enough.” That would be an absurd thing for me to say. If a police officer saw me race by a speed limit sign that read “55” - and I was going 80 mph - and I told the officer, “Well that wasn’t clear enough,” do you think he would be sympathetic? Of course not - likewise would that be an absurd thing to say. Why then, are we doubting what our Lord said plainly in scripture for the sake of our man-made traditions? Yes, I say man-made because, again, I have heard nothing but man’s opinion in this thread. I haven’t seen any one quoting scripture, yet here I am quoting scripture and I’m being told I’m arguing this with “preconceptions.” I have not had to say “this or that group of persons is or is not going to be saved” - the Lord did that for us. Those who deny Christ and reject Him will be rejected. To suggest otherwise is not only an affront to the words of our Lord, but a mockery of His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Della]

No Catholic is here is saying that those who knowingly and willfully reject Christ will be saved. We are saying that God is the judge, not us.

Nor are we saying that Scripture isn’t clear. We are saying we are not the Holy Spirit who knows each heart and mind.

Many people have never heard of Christ and many others who have do not truly know who he is and what he came to do. Some of the things posted within this thread are evidence of that.

What the Church teaches is that those who have not declared belief in Christ may be saved since if they had had the opportunity/the proper understanding they would have been baptized and led lives of believers. This does not preclude taking the Gospel to all creatures, it is the reason we need to do so, to be certain people have the best opportunity to know and love Our Lord in all the ways he has revealed himself to us, in word and sacrament.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

No Catholic is here is saying that those who knowingly and willfully reject Christ will be saved. We are saying that God is the judge, not us.

Nor are we saying that Scripture isn’t clear. We are saying we are not the Holy Spirit who knows each heart and mind.

Neither am I saying that. However, just as it is not us who passes judgment on a person’s soul, neither is it our responsibility to edit the gospel. For example, you tell me of ignorance and a kind of “divine loophole” where unbelievers can be saved. What did Paul say to the ignorant Athenians?

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” [Acts 17:30-31; ESV]

Men will be judged by where their heart lies. If their heart lies with Christ in the Father, they will have eternal life, if not, eternal damnation (cf. Col 3:1-4). This is why Christ told the apostles to proclaim the gospel to all the nations on the earth. You tell me of God’s love - was it not for this reason that the Good Shepherd sent His lesser shepherds out into the world to speak to the unbelieving masses and present to them the gift of eternal life (Matt 28:16-20)? Now you are telling me that doesn’t matter? Why then were they sent? Why then did Christ die? This leads us to universalism through and through, and in the end a great insult to the crucifixion and passion of our Lord. This is not the gospel found in scripture, and therefore it is not the gospel we should be preaching. No, we are not judges, but we are ambassadors to Christ (2 Cor 5:20), and only wicked ambassadors seek to change the message given to them by the king.

You tell me, “The Catholic Church teaches…” That’s wonderful. What does scripture teach? If the Catholic Church is scriptural, there is no need to avoid scripture. If I have no concept of why Christ came (as you suggested) then convict me with scripture. Use the word of God to show me that I do not understand the Eternal Word of God. Nowhere have I found in scripture the theology you are now professing, or else you would have been able to quote a single verse to condemn what I am professing. As it stands, I am merely reiterating what scripture teaches.

 

[KathleenGee]

I spoke with a member of the Hebrew Catholics…a Jewish man who became Catholic.

He said the New Covenant replaced the Sinai Covenant…And the Law was broken, Moses threw the tablets to the ground destroying them, after people turned to worship the Golden Calf…

So the Jews rejected the Law written in stone before they even entered the Promised Land. You see the wording of Jesus as being the cornerstone of the new life.

My friend was also telling me that around the time of the Diaspora, there were 5 million Jews…but only 1 million were those who did not accept Christ…so he wonders what happened to the other 4 million…he quoted how thousands were becoming followers of Christ day by day in the Holy Land…he is conjecturing, no proof…it is not about numbers but quality…and i don’t mean that to insinuate that Jews who are not accepting Christ lack any quality…

There is a passage in St. Paul who said that God hardened the hearts of the Jews so all could be saved…I shared with my Hebrew Catholic friend that I find myself relearning my Catholic faith and experience in the Holy Spirit a dominance the Hebrew Catholics have in faith…if we had Hebrew Catholics running the Church, it would be dominated by Hebrews…they are always God’s chosen people…

So if God hardened the Jewish people so others could come in and our Church would instead have a universal character, that doesn’t mean a hardening is condemning either. Instead when it comes to the Jewish people, realizing the Dual Covenant, we must put them in God’s hand.

My friend also shared that when someone actively rejects Christ – and we mean in His totality – His witness of life of compassion and healing, focusing on what is inside a person and not on the outside with all the adornments, listening to His great wisdom that can be applied to daily life to overcome one’s problems, to His behavior and response in His passion – if someone completely rejects all Who Jesus is and what He taught…then this person would be held in judgment.

So for the Jew who may not accept Christ as Messiah----the Jews have the great difficulty of understanding the Trinity and see it as polytheistic–but accept Christ in many other ways, then we put that person – not the class of Jews, in the hands of God. Each one of us must face God on our own two feet.

 

[Della]

Neither am I saying that. However, just as it is not us who passes judgment on a person’s soul, neither is it our responsibility to edit the gospel. For example, you tell me of ignorance and a kind of “divine loophole” where unbelievers can be saved. What did Paul say to the ignorant Athenians?

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” [Acts 17:30-31; ESV]

Men will be judged by where their heart lies. If their heart lies with Christ in the Father, they will have eternal life, if not, eternal damnation (cf. Col 3:1-4). This is why Christ told the apostles to proclaim the gospel to all the nations on the earth. You tell me of God’s love - was it not for this reason that the Good Shepherd sent His lesser shepherds out into the world to speak to the unbelieving masses and present to them the gift of eternal life (Matt 28:16-20)? Now you are telling me that doesn’t matter? Why then were they sent? Why then did Christ die? This leads us to universalism through and through, and in the end a great insult to the crucifixion and passion of our Lord. This is not the gospel found in scripture, and therefore it is not the gospel we should be preaching. No, we are not judges, but we are ambassadors to Christ (2 Cor 5:20), and only wicked ambassadors seek to change the message given to them by the king.

You tell me, “The Catholic Church teaches…” That’s wonderful. What does scripture teach? If the Catholic Church is scriptural, there is no need to avoid scripture. If I have no concept of why Christ came (as you suggested) then convict me with scripture. Use the word of God to show me that I do not understand the Eternal Word of God. Nowhere have I found in scripture the theology you are now professing, or else you would have been able to quote a single verse to condemn what I am professing. As it stands, I am merely reiterating what scripture teaches.

I haven’t quoted Bible verses because whenever I have done so, it’s become a “battle of the verses”. We cannot cull verses from the Bible to support what we already hold to be true. We must read them within the entire context. When I quoted from the Catechism I had no fear that I was ignoring certain parts of the Bible because the Church has already taken the whole of Scripture into account. One does not need to be a Bible scholar in order to know the Church is teaching the truth. I know this to be true because I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education (not from a Catholic college, but a Protestant one).

Those who nearly exclusively rely on the Bible often fall into the trap of citing/looking to those verses that “pop” out at them and seem to be confirming what they already think they know. That’s not proper biblical exegesis. One must take into account the whole of Scripture in order to fully grasp what the Church is teaching. You are not doing that. I don’t say that as an accusation, but as a simple fact. Why are you not doing that? Because you are unfamiliar with: 1) those verses that support Church teaching, and 2) the Church’s Sacred Tradition from which the NT sprang.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Marcus Grodi on EWTN, but he was a Protestant pastor who became Catholic and he often says (as do his guests on his show–often fellow Protestant ministers who became Catholic) that there were verses and passages he had read a hundred times but never took into account or really understood/never “saw” until he saw them through the lens of Catholic teaching. It’s the same with this topic. The Church is the voice of Christ in the world, not the Bible. The NT is the written witness of the Church Christ founded, not the only foundation upon which the Church formulates doctrine/dogma. The Bible cannot be truly understood outside of that context on this issue or any other.

The Bible is not one of those books we can just pick up, read, and know what the authors intended. We must know the Sacred Tradition in which they lived and breathed, their intention, their mission from Christ, the fact that the Church was founded by Christ, not the NT, that the OT was fulfilled in Christ and his Church, and that the Church speaks with the voice of Christ in the world. If we do not understand these things, we cannot understand Church teaching nor the NT–not truly and fully, at any rate. It is vitally important. So important I had to become a Catholic when I learned the Church preceded the NT, not vice versa. Just learning that alone set me on the path of “conversion” and learning what the Church is and the Bible’s place within it. Nothing can be properly understood without understanding this.

 

[Robbinson]

I’m a Jewish believer (Catholic).

So - some Jews believe in Yeshuah/Christ - thus salvation.

I believe that Jews who do not believe in Christ, and Gentiles who do not believe in Christ, have the possibility of salvation based upon the level of revelation made available to them.

God desires that all be saved and, yet, has by his own words, supernaturally blinded some (Israel as a collective) “until the full alotment of Gentiles comes in” (Romans 11). I reconcile this with scripture’s teaching that there is no other name under which we can be saved other than Jesus by looking to the thief on the cross as an example of one who came to faith just before death, and Jesus’s teaching that he calls out to us and we “recognize his voice”.

Thus I believe, and pray, that in the moments before our death, Jesus lifts the veil and calls out to us - those who know Him and those who have been searching (albeit with imperfect revelation) will recognize His voice and accept and worship Him and be saved.

This does not mean we should wait until the last moment of our lives to know Christ - the more we know Him and fellowship with God, the more we will be equipped to react to His grace. The more someone resists God’s calling, the more difficult it will be to respond.

We should preach the gospel by word and by deed to “fertilize the soil” for the working of the Holy Spirit in all.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[GerardMajella]

Brian - How do you reconcile your Catholic faith with the Jewish arguments that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah? According to Maimonides:

*All the Prophets said that the anointed one saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. *

In his epistle to Yemen, Maimonides had some very harsh words to say about Jesus as the “Messiah”:

*"Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will.

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute…

After that there arose a new sect which combined the two methods, namely, conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. It, therefore, resolved to lay claim to prophecy and to found a new faith, contrary to our Divine religion, and to contend that it was equally God-given. Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and to create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such is the remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain.

The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile. For in accordance with the principles of our law, a child born of a Jewess and a Gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave, is legitimate. (Yebamot 45a). Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. **He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. **The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.

Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah, as it is written, “Also the children of the impudent among thy people shall make bold to claim prophecy, but they shall fall.” (Daniel 11:14)"*

 

[Robbinson]

Brian - How do you reconcile your Catholic faith with the Jewish arguments that Jesus was not, in fact, the Messiah?

Gerard:

I reconcile it based upon the scriptures - just as the 12 apostles did (all of whom were Jewish - as was Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all authors of every book of scripture (except for Luke)) and by the working of the Holy Spirit which drew me unequivicably to faith in Yeshua/Jesus as the Messiah.

You are correct that there are many negative statements in the Talmud about Jesus - but there are facinating dialogues in the Talmud which support many Christian doctrines (including the Messianic application of Isaiah 53; acknowledgement that the Messiah would be a suffering servant, as well as a conquering king; acknowledgement that the sins of the Jewish people were not forgiven through sacrifice for the 40 years preceding the destruction of the second temple (which coincided, remarkably, with the cruficification of Jesus (Yoma 39b) of the Bablyonian Talmud).

Ultimately, however, I don’t accept the Talmud as binding authority, but as useful evidence that within the larger body of Judaism, there have been rabbis who have understood many of the messianic prophecies which point to Jesus as, in fact, being messianic (though many of these are denied by modern rabbinic judaism to be messianic). And, to be fair, there is much commentary within the Talmud which denies the messianic application of many of these prophecies.

Michael Brown (a wonderful Jewish believer who is both a pastor and semetic language scholar, albeit with a evangelical protestant perspective), has written a 5 volume treatise on “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a better understanding of the Jewish perspective on the Messiah (historically and today) and in framing the most common/significant objections and thoughtful responses.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[GerardMajella]

You are correct that there are many negative statements in the Talmud about Jesus

In the quote given from Maimonides, I believe that this came from his own writings on the subject, and not a part of the Talmud itself. I could be mistaken. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that Jesus is not referenced in the Talmud whatsoever, and – according to what I have read from the ADL, for example – many anti-semites cite the Talmud erroneously saying that it blasphemes Christ. I digress.

First, thank you for your thoughtful post. I do, however, understand and empathize with the perspective of the Jewish rabbis that object to Jesus – After all, after Christ died, the Temple was soon destroyed, the Jewish people scattered, and universal peace was not established. We see the Jewish people being persecuted as “Christ killers” for many centuries, including our own times.

Wasn’t the Jewish Messiah supposed to bring in an era of universal peace? Did Christ not violate some pretty clear commandments outlined in the Torah, when the Torah is supposed to be unchangeable? And with the advent of Christianity, weren’t many of the rules of the Mosaic Law lessened, not strengthened?

These are all questions that I cannot answer, and cannot rectify.

When you look at the evils that were done to the Jewish people in WW2 and throughout the centuries, and the rampant anti-semitism even in our own time, I cannot help but think that the Jewish Messiah has not yet arrived – not to mention the countless instances of savagery, butchery, murder, and criminality we see in our modern news headlines daily.

This is the era of universal peace? Until the Jews, Muslims, and Christians stand “shoulder to shoulder” to worship the one, true God, how can this be an era of “universal peace”?

Are the Jews saved? They worship the same God, and they are our brothers in the faith. They have an eternal covenant, do they not? They are the Chosen People of God, are they not? How can a devout Jew, therefore, not be saved?

Is it not true that, as Maimonides suggests “that every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force”? Do we not see that enemies of the Jews have been attacking Judaism since the days of the Old Testament?

 

[Robbinson]

In the quote given from Maimonides, I believe that this came from his own writings on the subject, and not a part of the Talmud itself. I could be mistaken. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that Jesus is not referenced in the Talmud whatsoever, and – according to what I have read from the ADL, for example – many anti-semites cite the Talmud erroneously saying that it blasphemes Christ. I digress.

Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Talmud (though there are some named references that contextually appear to apply to him) and many, if not most, rabbis would acknowledge the historical jesus and that He is referred to in the Talmud.

First, thank you for your thoughtful post. I do, however, understand and empathize with the perspective of the Jewish rabbis that object to Jesus – After all, after Christ died, the Temple was soon destroyed, the Jewish people scattered, and universal peace was not established. We see the Jewish people being persecuted as “Christ killers” for many centuries, including our own times.

Wasn’t the Jewish Messiah supposed to bring in an era of universal peace?

The bible descirbes the messiah as both a “suffering servant” who will suffer for the sins of Israel and die (Isaiah 53) and also, separately as a conquering King who will usher in ultimate peace between all living creatures. This dilema was acknowledged in the Talmud which even includes discusison of the possibility there might be 2 messiahs (a messiah ben Joseph - a suffering servant) and a messiah ben David, a conquering King). As Chrisitian’s we’d say “close” - but its one messiah (Jesus) who first comes as a suffering servant dieng for our sins and starting a period of “interior peace/shalom” followed by his second coming as a conquering King and judge which will usher in heavenly peace.

Did Christ not violate some pretty clear commandments outlined in the Torah, when the Torah is supposed to be unchangeable? And with the advent of Christianity, weren’t many of the rules of the Mosaic Law lessened, not strengthened?

Jesus followed the Mosaic law completely during his life and said he did not come to “abolish it” but to “fulfill it” (Mat 5:17) - and so He did. With his death and sacrifice, He fulfilled more completely the Temple (his body is the temple), the sacrifice (better than animal sacrifices); the priesthood (in the order of Melchezidek rather than Levitical) - it is the moral law now written in our hearts (the 10 commandments).

The mosaic law was not given until Sinai - (after the promise given to Abraham) and Jer 31:31-34 fortold of the day when a “new covenant”, expressly different than the “mosaic” covenant would come, when God’s law (I’d say 10 commandments) would be written into our hearts).

These are all questions that I cannot answer, and cannot rectify.

When you look at the evils that were done to the Jewish people in WW2 and throughout the centuries, and the rampant anti-semitism even in our own time, I cannot help but think that the Jewish Messiah has not yet arrived – not to mention the countless instances of savagery, butchery, murder, and criminality we see in our modern news headlines daily.

This is the era of universal peace? Until the Jews, Muslims, and Christians stand “shoulder to shoulder” to worship the one, true God, how can this be an era of “universal peace”?

I tried to address this issue of fuflillment of messianic prophecies above.

Are the Jews saved? They worship the same God, and they are our brothers in the faith. They have an eternal covenant, do they not? They are the Chosen People of God, are they not? How can a devout Jew, therefore, not be saved?

As I stated in my earlier post, I believe a jewish non-believer, muslem or other non-believer can be “saved” because we are held accountable to the level of revelation made available to us (this is Church teaching as well) - I believe this is possible because Jesus will reveal himself to each of us at some point during our lives (for many, by the calling in his voice in the moments before our death) - that is my hope and prayer.

Is it not true that, as Maimonides suggests “that every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force”? Do we not see that enemies of the Jews have been attacking Judaism since the days of the Old Testament?

Absolutely - and those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. There is a distinction between God’s plan for Israel, as a collective (continuing as a nation against all odds to ultimately show His great glory upon recognition of the Messiah at the second coming - "after the full allotement of Gentiles comes in " (Romans 11) when they will mourn for the one whom they have pierced (Zechariah) and call on the name of the Lord, on the one hand, and individual salvation, on the other. I continue to believe individual salvation is possible to all since God desires that all be saved - its a great mystery.

Blessings

Brian