Are Jews saved?

[GerardMajella]

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).

Would you happen to know which tractate of the Talmud discusses the two Messiah’s? (I have the first 21 volumes of the Art Scroll Schottenstein edition of the (Babylonian) Talmud, and would enjoy reading this discussion.)

Jesus followed the Mosaic law completely during his life

I have read, however, of Jesus not following some of the Mosaic Law – such as working on the Sabbath, not advocating the eating of kosher, etc. I believe that this was one of the reasons why Jesus was accused of being a heretic.

Do you believe that Jesus came to spread the Noahide laws to the Gentiles, and not to abolish the Torah for the Jews, as Rabbi Emden states?

What do you think of poster KathleenGrace’s comment:

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…

Did the large majority of Jews accept Christ as noted above?

Ultimately, if Christ was a false Messiah, as Maimonides outlines quite clearly in my earlier quote (“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.”), then this throws the entire concept of Christianity in doubt.

Explain this: To understand the Torah, I find myself having to constantly refer back to the Jewish Sages for a complete, accurate, and descriptive explanation of Scripture, albeit not in messianic interpretive terms.

In doing so, one cannot help but think that the Roman Catholic Church, (and Islam for that matter), has “hijacked” Holy Writ to suit their own purposes, as deviations from the Torah. (You could even hold the same argument for Catholic prayers and liturgy, much of which we owe to our Jewish brethren.)

Part of these scriptural deviations I attribute to language translation barriers – Hebrew to Latin to English. But, we even see this kind of editing in the Divine Office, where the Holy Fathers decide to eliminate some of the Psalms from the Psalter of the Divine Office. This kind of editing and revisionism waters down and distorts Holy Writ, sometimes to the point of being near impossible to understand without referencing the Jewish Sages.

I also see this in the Liturgy of the Hours, where there is constant straining and stretching to place Christianity within the context of the Psalter.

So, when you read Maimonides arguments against Christianity (and hence Christ offering “salvation”, the point of this thread), you can start to see and understand some of the ways in which there has been a “hijacking” of sorts of Judaism by these offshoot religions. Ultimately, if Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are to stand “shoulder to shoulder”, we have to deal with an authentic monotheism agreeable to all. Or, one must conquer the other two.

 

[Robbinson]

Gerard:

I’ll do my best to adress each question - you are quite learned regarding Judaism - might I ask, are you Jewish?

Would you happen to know which tractate of the Talmud discusses the two Messiah’s?

I’d have to go back myself to find all the relevant passages - but you can start with B. Sukkah 52a (messiah ben David raises Missiah ben Jospeh from the dead).

I have read, however, of Jesus not following some of the Mosaic Law – such as working on the Sabbath, not advocating the eating of kosher, etc. I believe that this was one of the reasons why Jesus was accused of being a heretic.

Actually - Jesus kept the Sabbath as per scripture. What he did was “healed” on the Sabbath and picked grain on the Sabbath which violated the rabbinic interpretations/traditions expanding upon the restriction on “working” on the Sabbath. Jesus taught that healing on the Sabbath was consistent with God’s law and he criticized the Pharasees (jewish leadership of the time) of swallowing the spirit of the law with ring fencing interpretations (albeit designed, I understand) to protect the Torah. So he accused the Pharasees of hypocracy.

Jesus was accused of being a heretic for claiming to be God and claiming the authority to forgive sins- this would be a fair charge, of course, if he was not the Messiah.

Jesus did not make unclean foods “clean” until after his death and sacrifice ushering in the new covenant.

Do you believe that Jesus came to spread the Noahide laws to the Gentiles, and not to abolish the Torah for the Jews, as Rabbi Emden states?

No - I believe that Jesus came to fulfill the mosaic Law; to break down the barrier between Jew and Gentile - to write the moral law (10 commandments) in all of our hearts. This same law applies to Jew and Gentile in Christ - we are one “echad” in Christ, just as man and woman become one “echad” flesh and just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “echad” (one) -a compound unity (anticipating your future objection ).

What do you think of poster KathleenGrace’s comment:
Did the large majority of Jews accept Christ as noted above?

I have no idea what percentage of Jews were in disaspora or what percentage of jews accepted Christ at his coming - I know that (i) 3,000 came to faith per the gospels at Pentacost and (ii) God has taught us throughout the Hebrew scriptures that through history, the jewish people, while chosen, were largely in rebellion and only a “faithful remnant” were His. In Elijah’s time, that was about 7,000 as I recall. So there was a faithful remnant in Jesus day so there is now.

Explain this: To understand the Torah, I find myself having to constantly refer back to the Jewish Sages for a complete, accurate, and descriptive explanation of Scripture, albeit not in messianic interpretive terms.

In doing so, one cannot help but think that the Roman Catholic Church, (and Islam for that matter), has “hijacked” Holy Writ to suit their own purposes, as deviations from the Torah. (You could even hold the same argument for Catholic prayers and liturgy, much of which we owe to our Jewish brethren.)

I don’t agree with the quote (shortened because text limit was reached) - and Maimonidies had his own agenda of distinguishing Judaism from Christianity - which started as a sect of Judaism. The New Testament is built upon, and follows from, the Hebrew scriptures. It represents the fulfillment of promises and prophecies throughout the Hebrew scriptures.

Let’s look at this another way - if you don’t mind. Empirically, God told us in the Hebrew Scriptures (i) the messiah would come before the destruction of the second temple; before the scepter passed from Judah (in fact, once again, the Talmud shows us this “understanding” by the rabbis who couldn’t understand why he didn’t come at the appointed time); (ii) the Temple was destroyed and 2/3 of the mosaic law has not been possible for over 2,000 years; (iii) according to Judiasm, Israel has been without a prophet this entire time; (iv) as noted earlier, the Talmud testifies to the witness of Jews that for the 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, the sins of the Jewish people were not fogiven (coincideing with the crucifiction of the messiah); and (v) God told us the messiah would be rejected by His people, God would cause Israel to have eyes but not see and ears but not hear and the messiah would then become a light to the Gentile nations.

Its a striking empirical picture - by definition, if Israel is blinded, they will not recognize the messiah - who is it that came at the appointed time? was rejected by his own people (for the most part); lived and died fulfilling many of the messianic prophecies; was sacrificed “on the passover”; became a light to the Gentile nations bringing healing and knowledge of the God of Israel to billions of people?

If not Jesus - then the Hebrew prophets were false prophets because the messiah did not come as scripture said He would.

Ultimately - intellectual debate and discussion will not lead to conversion (from either/any perspective), God’s word and the work of the Holy Spirit will do that.

So - if you are a Jewish non-believer, we share a common heritage (as two Jews); we (jew and Christian) share a common faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - and we can work together, in love, with patience and without judgement, to seek God - I’m confident that through prayer, introspection and an open mind and heart, Yeshua will speak to all of us - “if not now, when” (Hilell).

Blessings brother.

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To Della:

You are once again, I’m afraid, launching accusations against me without demonstrating that such is happening. Furthermore, your rather “rah rah rah” tone of Catholic advertisement at the end of your post isn’t going to add anything to the discussion, except perhaps win points with Roman Catholics who already agree with you.

I agree that discussions regarding scriptural teachings can become a game of “You have your verses, I have mine.” The difference is, when I have someone tell me, “Well these are my verses,” I look at the verses and show, through exegesis, how they are interpreting those verses fallaciously. You are accusing me of doing that, but the fact of the matter is I haven’t really had a chance to do that because: (1) I haven’t had a single scripture thrown my way to explain or contradict what I have brought forth, so it’s not even a game of “You have your scriptures, I have mine,” it’s a game of “You have your scriptures, and I’m going to cover my eyes and ears and pretend they don’t exist”; (2) I haven’t had one person try to exegete the passages or show how I am taking them out of context (and I have openly asked almost four or five times now - this is a fact - for someone to do so). I’ve been continually told “You’re taking those out of context!” but when I ask for someone to explain why, I’m simply told again, “You’re taking those out of context!” Again, ad nauseum argumentation.

You tell me there are “verses that support Church teaching.” Well, then please bring them forward. As such, I haven’t had one verse brought into the discussion. If the Roman Catholic Church is scriptural, as you say, and there are scriptures that support the Roman Catholic’s teaching on this doctrine, then please, by all means, bring them forward. To argue, “There are scriptures to support this! Where are they? Well I don’t want to bring them into the discussion because uh that wouldn’t get any where…” is just circular reasoning.

Once again, I have to ask - if there is any scripture that supports what you say or explains further what I have brought forth, please bring it forward. If you can’t, I can only assume your teaching is unscriptural and therefore man-made, and therefore not from God.

 

[Robbinson]

To Della:

You are once again, I’m afraid, launching accusations against me without demonstrating that such is happening. Furthermore, your rather “rah rah rah” tone of Catholic advertisement at the end of your post isn’t going to add anything to the discussion, except perhaps win points with Roman Catholics who already agree with you.

I agree that discussions regarding scriptural teachings can become a game of “You have your verses, I have mine.” The difference is, when I have someone tell me, “Well these are my verses,” I look at the verses and show, through exegesis, how they are interpreting those verses fallaciously. You are accusing me of doing that, but the fact of the matter is I haven’t really had a chance to do that because: (1) I haven’t had a single scripture thrown my way to explain or contradict what I have brought forth, so it’s not even a game of “You have your scriptures, I have mine,” it’s a game of “You have your scriptures, and I’m going to cover my eyes and ears and pretend they don’t exist”; (2) I haven’t had one person try to exegete the passages or show how I am taking them out of context (and I have openly asked almost four or five times now - this is a fact - for someone to do so). I’ve been continually told “You’re taking those out of context!” but when I ask for someone to explain why, I’m simply told again, “You’re taking those out of context!” Again, ad nauseum argumentation.

You tell me there are “verses that support Church teaching.” Well, then please bring them forward. As such, I haven’t had one verse brought into the discussion. If the Roman Catholic Church is scriptural, as you say, and there are scriptures that support the Roman Catholic’s teaching on this doctrine, then please, by all means, bring them forward. To argue, “There are scriptures to support this! Where are they? Well I don’t want to bring them into the discussion because uh that wouldn’t get any where…” is just circular reasoning.

Once again, I have to ask - if there is any scripture that supports what you say or explains further what I have brought forth, please bring it forward. If you can’t, I can only assume your teaching is unscriptural and therefore man-made, and therefore not from God.

Hi Byzantine - sorry, maybe I’ve missed this exchange earlier in the thread - what exactly are you looking for scriptural support for (Or what is the issue) ? I’m happy to provide scriptural support for anything I believe, or listen to someone who has scriptural support for another viewpoint.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Hi Byzantine - sorry, maybe I’ve missed this exchange earlier in the thread - what exactly are you looking for scriptural support for (Or what is the issue) ? I’m happy to provide scriptural support for anything I believe, or listen to someone who has scriptural support for another viewpoint.

Blessings,

Brian

Thank you for the interest, Robbinson.

And well, to sum it up: salvation outside of Christ. You might have to read the dialogue from the previous pages to understand where the two of us were coming from.

 

[Nine_Two]

Thank you for the interest, Robbinson.

And well, to sum it up: salvation outside of Christ. You might have to read the dialogue from the previous pages to understand where the two of us were coming from.

Scripture does, however indicate the possibility of salvation in the afterlife.

(Matt 12:32)

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Scripture does, however indicate the possibility of salvation in the afterlife.

(Matt 12:32)

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. [Matthew 12:32]

I’m afraid I don’t see it there.

Although at least it’s not like the crazy cultist who tried to convince me the parable of the ungrateful servant in Matthew 18 was proof of Purgatory. What an interesting conversation that was.

 

[Nine_Two]

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. [Matthew 12:32]

I’m afraid I don’t see it there.

Although at least it’s not like the crazy cultist who tried to convince me the parable of the ungrateful servant in Matthew 18 was proof of Purgatory. What an interesting conversation that was.

the “age to come”.

The implication being that there are sins to forgive, whether you believe this means in heaven, purgatory, after the resurrection, whatever. The statement gives the possibilities for forgiveness after death.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

the “age to come”.

The implication being that there are sins to forgive, whether you believe this means in heaven, purgatory, after the resurrection, whatever. The statement gives the possibilities for forgiveness after death.

“Either in this age or the age to come,” meaning for all eternity, both in the here and hereafter. The emphasis, again, is for all time. It doesn’t mean there’s a chance for forgiveness later, as if God’s saying, “Man! I’m gonna condemn you so bad when we get in the age to come!” and then when we get there He says, “Oh, well never mind, I’ve cooled down since then.”

 

[Nine_Two]

“Either in this age or the age to come,” meaning for all eternity, both in the here and hereafter. The emphasis, again, is for all time. It doesn’t mean there’s a chance for forgiveness later, as if God’s saying, “Man! I’m gonna condemn you so bad when we get in the age to come!” and then when we get there He says, “Oh, well never mind, I’ve cooled down since then.”

αιων (from which we get eon) can mean a few things, it can mean something as short as a generation (or lifetime), to a long undetermined period of time (such as the Golden, Silver, Bronze ages of Greek Mythology). The Greek doesn’t repeat αιων though, it simply says μελλοντι, which used in this form indicates “the one to come”, meaning that unlike say when Jesus tells the man to forgive his brother seventy times seven times (indicating a very big number), Christ here is speaking about two distinct periods of existence.

Source on this Liddell & Scott 1940 edition (I was too lazy to get up to get my 1999 edition), with help from Biblos.com (again, too lazy to get up).

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

αιων (from which we get eon) can mean a few things, it can mean something as short as a generation (or lifetime), to a long undetermined period of time (such as the Golden, Silver, Bronze ages of Greek Mythology). The Greek doesn’t repeat αιων though, it simply says μελλοντι, which used in this form indicates “the one to come”, meaning that unlike say when Jesus tells the man to forgive his brother seventy times seven times (indicating a very big number), Christ here is speaking about two distinct periods of existence.

Source on this Liddell & Scott 1940 edition (I was too lazy to get up to get my 1999 edition), with help from Biblos.com (again, too lazy to get up).

The argument is not on whether or not two different time periods are being discussed, but what those time periods mean and what context they’re being used for. Christ first states: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” He then adds after this: “but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” He highlights a higher offense, and then shows the severity of the case: that the judgment will be placed on the person not only now but also in eternity to come. Our Lord is simply emphasizing what He said in the previous verse: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” The focal point this whole time is blasphemy on the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:32 is an addition to the statement made in Matthew 12:31.

And, again, it would be illogical to think that the Lord would - between the time we die to “the age to come” - change His mind about our judgment.

 

[Nine_Two]

The argument is not on whether or not two different time periods are being discussed, but what those time periods mean and what context they’re being used for. Christ first states: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” He then adds after this: “but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” He highlights a higher offense, and then shows the severity of the case: that the judgment will be placed on the person not only now but also in eternity to come. Our Lord is simply emphasizing what He said in the previous verse: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” The focal point this whole time is blasphemy on the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:32 is an addition to the statement made in Matthew 12:31.

Absolutely 12:32 is an addition to 12:31, an emphasis. But…

And, again, it would be illogical to think that the Lord would - between the time we die to “the age to come” - change His mind about our judgment.

To say forgiveness is an act of God changing his mind I think, is wrong. Using that language we must accept God changes his mind whenever we go to him for forgiveness, whether in this life or the next.

Still, this is the issue which arises now with this verse is I think the exact issue that Della was referring to. We are simply dealing with two conflicting interpretations of the same words. No number of verses will change that, and while I might be drawn to accept your interpretation in English, it just doesn’t seem to work with the Greek. Perhaps if it was όι αιωνες των αιώνως. (The ages of ages) I’d agree, but the current construction I can’t, especially since it is in the singular (one age at a time).

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To say forgiveness is an act of God changing his mind I think, is wrong. Using that language we must accept God changes his mind whenever we go to him for forgiveness, whether in this life or the next.

I don’t uphold that God “changes His mind” when we go to Him for forgiveness, because as the perfect Father of Eternity God knows when we will repent and is already waiting for us to, and to suggest we can change His mind is to suggest we can somehow appease Him, which is never the case. This life, however, is for the preparation of what will be reaped in the age to come. We don’t get to do last minute repentance after we die. Certainly nothing in the text suggests that.

And again, as I said in my previous post, we aren’t dealing with “conflicting interpretations of the same words,” because the Greek is not an issue, and ergo to say that’s the problem is a strawman. You’re telling me the Greek of “the age to come,” but that doesn’t matter, especially as I agreed that the text identifies the age now and the age to come, but have discussed, again, why that’s irrelevant. It would be like me presenting to you the Greek for “the Holy Spirit” and saying that proves my case.

Christ is emphasizing the seriousness of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, not telling people there can be forgiveness after we die. The former fits with the context of what is being discussed before and after. You admit that this is the context briefly but change the subject with “but…” and leap to the topic of forgiveness. You can’t, however, ignore the importance of context.

If you want to prove to me that there is forgiveness in the afterlife by using one verse out of all scripture that is backed up by stating what the Greek for “the age to come” is while nearly ignoring the context of the passages around it, then I’m sorry but that’s not going to convince anyone.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t uphold that God “changes His mind” when we go to Him for forgiveness, because as the perfect Father of Eternity God knows when we will repent and is already waiting for us to, and to suggest we can change His mind is to suggest we can somehow appease Him, which is never the case. This life, however, is for the preparation of what will be reaped in the age to come. We don’t get to do last minute repentance after we die. Certainly nothing in the text suggests that.

I know you don’t believe God changes his mind when we ask for forgiveness, however that was the language you applied to forgiveness in the afterlife. My point was such language doesn’t make the case.

And again, as I said in my previous post, we aren’t dealing with “conflicting interpretations of the same words,” because the Greek is not an issue, and ergo to say that’s the problem is a strawman. You’re telling me the Greek of “the age to come,” but that doesn’t matter, especially as I agreed that the text identifies the age now and the age to come, but have discussed, again, why that’s irrelevant. It would be like me presenting to you the Greek for “the Holy Spirit” and saying that proves my case.

Your point, as I understand it, is that when Christ says “this age or the next” he means a very long period of time. My argument is that it seems to me to refer to two distinct periods of time I am not trying to create a strawman, if I have misunderstood your argument regarding the meaning of “this age and the age to come”, then tell me.

Christ is emphasizing the seriousness of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, not telling people there can be forgiveness after we die. The former fits with the context of what is being discussed before and after. You admit that this is the context briefly but change the subject with “but…” and leap to the topic of forgiveness. You can’t, however, ignore the importance of context.

The primary purpose of the speech is to make a statement regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, yes, however that does not mean it is the only purpose, or the only thing it says. Many of the verses the NT trumpets as Messianic were buried in other verses primarily dealing with other issues.

If you want to prove to me that there is forgiveness in the afterlife by using one verse out of all scripture that is backed up by stating what the Greek for “the age to come” is while nearly ignoring the context of the passages around it, then I’m sorry but that’s not going to convince anyone.

My purpose is not to prove anything, in fact I’m curious and fully intend to look into what the Fathers said about that verse. However, Jesus is known for his parables, therefore why is it a stretch that he should speak one message out loud, and another with more subtlety. As I’ve already noted, many messianic verses are delivered in this way.

In the end, however, as Wesley said perhaps we must agree to disagree. I offered you the verse you were asking for, one which I have been contemplating lately, and one which I have not come to definitive conclusions on. I most certainly do believe he was talking about this life and the afterlife, but beyond that do not know.

 

[Zooey]

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.

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.

Della, it is always a pleasure to read your posts.:thankyou::curtsey:

 

[Zooey]

Scripture does, however indicate the possibility of salvation in the afterlife.

(Matt 12:32)

Thank you; your postings here have been especially interesting & helpful to me.:thankyou:

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To Nine_Two:

In regards to the language of the verse, I was referring to the idea of a state of repentance being changed from our judgment at death to our judgment at the day of resurrection. Nowhere in scripture is it said that it can change between the two points - that is merely read into scripture.

In regards to the identification of two states of time, again that is not an issue because I do not deny it. What I would argue is what this means, and as I said it is speaking of eternity - from here onto the ages of ages. Let me present an example to show what I mean: if I make the statement, “I’ll be out of town tomorrow (Thursday) and Friday,” I’m identifying two different points of time - however, I’m not identifying them for separate reasons. I’ll still be out of town those two days. My comment doesn’t mean that I’ll be in town tomorrow but out of town Friday. Now if someone in Greece were to argue with someone “Well he signifies the next day and the day after that” as if my context had changed, that would be illogical and irrelevant.

You say that sometimes there are additional meanings and that Christ taught parables - yes, all that is true, but nowhere is that being seen here. The context is unmistakable when one studies the entire passage. Christ is responding to those who are accusing Him of casting out demons with demons, to which Christ identifies it as the work of the Spirit of God (12:28). He then goes on to identify that “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (12:31), followed up with stating that “whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (12:32). Again, the emphasis is on the Spirit of God and the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit. There is nothing about postmortem repentance, nor can we believe that is what Christ is even touching on the subject without isolating 12:31 and moving the text in that direction. It would also contradict what scripture elsewhere says about judgment and the way repentance before death works, such as the writer to the Hebrews said: “just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27).

If you want to look at the Church Fathers, you can look at John Chrysostom’s take on it - you will find that he says nothing of postmortem repentance, and in fact likewise says that Christ is merely emphasizing the seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Robbinson]

Thank you for the interest, Robbinson.

And well, to sum it up: salvation outside of Christ. You might have to read the dialogue from the previous pages to understand where the two of us were coming from.

Point taken, my bad (on not looking earlier in the thread).

I will say that I loved Della’s post . But regarding some scriptural basis for the Church teaching that we are held accountable to the level of revlation made available to us and that while we are all saved “through Christ”, its possible that some may be saved not knowing his “name” but knowing “him” through sincere effort to know and love God . . .

John 9:41 - Jesus talking to the Pharasees:

"Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. "
Here Jesus is telling the non-believers that if they were “blind” (didn’t know Christ) they would not have “guilt” - in this case they claimed to see and understand and yet rejected Christ, and thus were guilty.

Similarly, see John 15:22: again, Jesus talking:

** “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”**

If someone has not “known Jesus” they have not sin.

Again, I’d like to reiterate, that I’m not suggesting, and the Church is not teaching, that we can be saved of our own works or without faith - just that (i) God is merciful and is bigger than the “name” Jesus; (ii) we know salvation comes through Christ and the church, even for those not fully in communion with the church; and (iii) we are held accountable to the revelation made available to us.

I personally believe that the thief on the cross is a “picture” of end of life conversion which forshadows Jesus’s calling to all of us in the moments before death so that all will have a chance to respond to Him directly - that is my hope and prayer.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[KathleenGee]

Gerard,

Acknowledge your reference to my Hebrew Catholic friend…he is conjecturing and we assume the number fact will never be known as to what happened to the 4 million Jews.

Yes, I have read the Jewish criticism that we have ‘taken’ from their faith tradition to make something of our own. I am not scholared as such…I know that Greek was the international language at the time-- not Latin which I presumed.

There are the Nazarene Jews who followed Jesus, who in protest, stopped the worship on Saturday and moved it to Sunday and ended the 40 day fast…and their genealogical assimilation into the Gentile Christians down through time. In Palestine…what is left of the Christians there is that they still practice the Jewish custom in their home in the breaking of the bread…that in the mystical sense the Church is the New Jerusalem, its fullness our kingdom of Christ…

My Hebrew Catholic friend stated the Jews started seeing the Church as that coming out of Sinai, of the Gentile grabbing the hem of the Jew…the two lamp stands, the two olive trees…the wild one grafted to the other…the Holy Spirit was making the connection for them and they became Catholic.

What is so beautiful to hear is that they are now more fulfilled in the Catholic Church than before it. That is no surprise for me in regards to our Resurrection Sunday worship.

I myself am an associate of the Hebrew Catholic, having had my tribulation in the Church where I ‘died’, and found new life in Scriptural spirituality…I shared with my friend that I picked up a dominance, through the Holy Spirit…not a competitive thing of Gentile vs Jewish Catholic reading their forum…what I experienced was an organic presence that these Jews were God’s Chosen people, that the Bible is truly their culture, and if these same people were living then…the Jews would literally dominate the Catholic Church and it would not have its universal charism.

So the Lord hardened the hearts of the Jews – He did not condemn them – they had to die to themselves – so the Church could go out to preach to all nations and establish local churches.

Some outstanding scholars are members of Hebrew Catholics and you would find their work most interesting and timely in the present times we are living.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thanks again for your response, Robbinson.

In regards to your quotation of John 9:41, you are right that those who are blind have no guilt and those who claim to see have guilt, but let’s understand the context of which that is said. It is the tail-end of the story of the man born blind, who was made to see by God. After the blind man’s profession of faith, Christ states: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (9:39). In other words, the context is spiritual awakenings, and those who are “blind” but have no guilt are those whom God will make see, and those who are blind but claim to see are those who think they aren’t blind to begin with. The greatest reason Christ gave sight to the man born blind was for this reason: to show that only He is able to make the spiritually blind see, and those who believe they can see on their own bring about their own condemnation.

In regards to John 15:22, the context is in regards to those who hate Christ:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:18-22)

Even without the full context the wording is clear: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” Now they have no excuse. In other words, they have no excuse now that the Word has become Incarnate. Christ even clarifies in the previous verse that there is some “ignorance” on the person’s part, stating “they do not know him who sent me.” Christ is not saying if you somehow don’t know Christ you’re off the hook.

This doesn’t touch the fact that even if we were to identify this as “a sin,” it would not be the only thing against the person. The apostle Paul, writing to the Ephesian Christians, states that they were at one point “by nature children of wrath,” then broadens that out with “like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:3). In other words, before the saving grace of God men are children of wrath. They are the blind people, and there are some who are made to realize they are blind and come to He who gives sight, and others who say they see even though they are blind. People are not forgiven because they are spiritually blind - they only receive sight by the Lord who gives sight. Turning to these two posts also ignores the lessons taught in various other scriptures: that Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14:9), that those who deny Christ will be denied before the Father in heaven (Matthew 10:32-33), not to mention the countless discussions in John’s gospel where salvation is coupled with belief in Christ (John 1:12-13, 3:17-18, 11:24-26, to name a few). The New Testament is clear: salvation is found in Christ alone. To suggest anything else is not the gospel.

Now you might tell me “I’m not suggesting, and the Church is not teaching, that we can be saved of our own works or without faith,” but when you create a loophole such as this, that is precisely what you are introducing. As I told Della earlier (and which they didn’t respond to), if people could be saved by not knowing God, why the Great Commission? If people could be saved outside of Christ, why did Christ die? Why the Incarnation at all? It might feel horrible in our post-modern mindset that unbelief of a “good” person would send them to hell, but that is what scripture teaches - righteousness is found only in Christ, and our life is hidden with Him in God (Col 3:3). That is why the Great Commission happened, and that is all the more reason for us to evangelize and reach out to those of unbelief.