Catholic influence in UN motion Israel?

[Qoeleth]

I wonder if there are any thoughts on the recent UN motions against Israel 's illegal ‘colonization/invasion’ of Palestinian land? It seems to reflect the position articulated by Pope Francis remarkably closely.

I hear that Trump did not ‘veto’ but only abstained- perhaps the Catholic influence at work here again?

Anyway, hopefully the more reasonable position being advocated will help Christian/Muslim relationships to flourish on better terms, a contribute positively to justice and peace.

 

[ltwin]

I wonder if there are any thoughts on the recent UN motions against Israel 's illegal ‘colonization/invasion’ of Palestinian land? It seems to reflect the position articulated by Pope Francis remarkably closely.

I hear that Trump did not ‘veto’ but only abstained- perhaps the Catholic influence at work here again?

Anyway, hopefully the more reasonable position being advocated will help Christian/Muslim relationships to flourish on better terms, a contribute positively to justice and peace.

Trump had noting to do with it because he is not the president yet. He is the “president elect”, meaning he has been elected president for a term of 4 years that has not began yet. Trump doesn’t become president until the inauguration in January, when Obama’s term actually ends.

It was Obama’s administration who abstained in a shameful example of a lame duck president doing what he knows he could never get away with if he were up for reelection again. This resolution had went before the Security Council before, and it was vetoed by the United States. The only thing that changed is that Obama realized that he was on his way out and there would be no political damage to him anymore.

Compared to other recent US presidents, Obama has been extraordinarily hostile to Israeli interests. It’s also apparent that he and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu really don’t like each other. With all due respect, I doubt Pope Francis or any Christian leader had much influence on this stunning turnabout in US foreign policy.

 

[TOmNossor]

It was Obama’s administration who abstained in a shameful example of a lame duck president doing what he knows he could never get away with if he were up for reelection again. This resolution had went before the Security Council before, and it was vetoed by the United States. The only thing that changed is that Obama realized that he was on his way out and there would be no political damage to him anymore…

According to Netanyahu, it is worse than this. He claims that Israeli intelligence has PROOF that the US sponsored (covertly as I understand) this resolution and then abstained. The Obama administration denies this. I do not know the truth, but if I had unlimited time I would form a solid opinion.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Israel has no friends left in the world. The Jews are on their own in terms of self defense. The anti-semites have been planning since WWII to finish the Holocaust.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Israel has no friends left in the world. The Jews are on their own in terms of self defense. The anti-semites have been planning since WWII to finish the Holocaust.

Trump told Israel to hang on until January 20th.

Trump had no part in the vote that happened at the UN.
Whether there was a Catholic influence?..

 

[Qoeleth]

According to Netanyahu, it is worse than this. He claims that Israeli intelligence has PROOF that the US sponsored (covertly as I understand) this resolution and then abstained. The Obama administration denies this. I do not know the truth, but if I had unlimited time I would form a solid opinion.
Charity, TOm

But, it isn’t it about condemning Israel practising of stealing land from the people of Palestine, and expelling the Palestinians (remember, Jesus and Mary were Palestinians)…

I think Russia was behind it (Putin being a devout Christian), and Trump also (a friend of Putin) is being influenced more in the pro-Christian, pro-Palestine position, advocated by people like Pope Francis…

I read that the PM of Israel had rung up the PM of New Zealand (on of the sponsors of the motion), and threatened him.

Let’s pray a rosary that Trump, together with Putin, may work for true justice in this matter.

 

[ltwin]

But, it isn’t it about condemning Israel practising of stealing land from the people of Palestine, and expelling the Palestinians (remember, Jesus and Mary were Palestinians)…

Well, they were also Jewish too.

I think Russia was behind it (Putin being a devout Christian), and Trump also (a friend of Putin) is being influenced more in the pro-Christian, pro-Palestine position, advocated by people like Pope Francis…

I doubt it. The Republicans and even many Democrats really won’t stand for it. The only way Obama can do it now is that he’s a lame duck. He’s on his way out for good. He has nothing left to lose. Trump has tweeted that the Security Council resolution was disrespectful to Israel, and he’s told the Israelis to stay strong until he takes office.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, they were also Jewish too.

I doubt it. The Republicans and even many Democrats really won’t stand for it. The only way Obama can do it now is that he’s a lame duck. He’s on his way out for good. He has nothing left to lose. Trump has tweeted that the Security Council resolution was disrespectful to Israel, and he’s told the Israelis to stay strong until he takes office.

No- Jesus was Christian (since He believed in Himself, obviously!), and so was Mary (His first disciple). I would say, not only were they Christian, but actually Catholic- since Jesus Himself celebrated the first Catholic Mass!!

Remember the UN resolution is not condemning the Jews- who have a valid right to pursue their own religion, just like Hindus, or Bahais, Rastafarians, or whatever- but rather against the entity which refers to itself as “The State of Israel”. I hope you are able to separate the question of religious tolerance, from the question of working together toward peace.

Let’s pray it leads to better relations between Christians and our Muslim brothers and sisters, and between ‘the West’, and the good people of Russia.

 

[Tablefor9]

No- Jesus was Christian (since He believed in Himself, obviously!), and so was Mary (His first disciple). I would say, not only were they Christian, but actually Catholic- since Jesus Himself celebrated the first Catholic Mass!!

Remember the UN resolution is not condemning the Jews- who have a valid right to pursue their own religion, just like Hindus, or Bahais, Rastafarians, or whatever- but rather against the entity which refers to itself as “The State of Israel”…

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, born to a Jewish Mother. Christianity was a sect of Judaism for many, many years. To say otherwise is to be revisionist, at best, with history. There’s no need.

 

[Memaw]

Israel has no friends left in the world. The Jews are on their own in terms of self defense. The anti-semites have been planning since WWII to finish the Holocaust.

They do but Obama JUST DOESN’T THINK SO!!! Wait till he"s gone!!! God Bless,Memaw

 

[Qoeleth]

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, born to a Jewish Mother. Christianity was a sect of Judaism for many, many years. To say otherwise is to be revisionist, at best, with history. There’s no need.

Remember, Judaism in its modern form did not exist until after the time of Christ.

It would be more accurate to describe Jesus’ family background as “Palestinian monotheists.”

But Christ Himself was Christian…If Christ wasn’t Christian, then what hope do the rest of us have, eh?

 

[ltwin]

Remember, Judaism in its modern form did not exist until after the time of Christ.

It would be more accurate to describe Jesus’ family background as “Palestinian monotheists.”

This is not accurate. Jesus was an ethnic and religious Jew. So what if 2nd Temple Judaism is different than modern Rabbinic Judaism? That’s like saying 1st century Christianity was very different from what it is today so lets go out of our way to call Paul a “Greco-Roman monotheist” just to deny modern Christians any association with Paul’s legacy or theology.

But Christ Himself was Christian…If Christ wasn’t Christian, then what hope do the rest of us have, eh?

Jesus Christ lived his entire life as a Jewish man. He fulfilled the Jewish law perfectly. His earliest followers were Jews. It was only after his death that anyone began to imagine his teachings were something outside of Judaism.

To call Christ a Christian is anachronistic. To call him a “Palestinian monotheist” is an odd way of saying he was a Jewish man who lived in Roman occupied Israel. It was only called Palestine after the Jewish revolt in 135 AD as an insult to the Jewish people. Palestine comes from the Latin word for Philistine, an ancient enemy of Israel.Jesus would have never called himself a Palestinian, but he did call himself a Jew.

 

[Qoeleth]

This is not accurate. Jesus was an ethnic and religious Jew. So what if 2nd Temple Judaism is different than modern Rabbinic Judaism? That’s like saying 1st century Christianity was very different from what it is today so lets go out of our way to call Paul a “Greco-Roman monotheist” just to deny modern Christians any association with Paul’s legacy or theology.

Jesus Christ lived his entire life as a Jewish man. He fulfilled the Jewish law perfectly. His earliest followers were Jews. It was only after his death that anyone began to imagine his teachings were something outside of Judaism.

To call Christ a Christian is anachronistic. To call him a “Palestinian monotheist” is an odd way of saying he was a Jewish man who lived in Roman occupied Israel. It was only called Palestine after the Jewish revolt in 135 AD as an insult to the Jewish people. Palestine comes from the Latin word for Philistine, an ancient enemy of Israel.Jesus would have never called himself a Palestinian, but he did call himself a Jew.

No, no, you are forgetting the Gospel. Remember, He broke the ‘rules’ of washing hands, Sabbath, etc. Remember, ‘nothing that goes into a man can make him unclean’. And thus He did away with the old law, with its rules and regulation (to quote Paul). This is why the Jewish authorities wanted to kill Him (and, in fact, did).

Look, to say Christ is not a Christian is like saying Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist.

A lot of Muslims say that Abraham, Jesus, etc. were actually Muslims, because they believed in the One True God, and followed His laws.

Remember, also Galilee was called “Galilee of the Gentiles”- a Jesus was a Galilean, of course. Check out the Gospel of John- it is clear the ‘Jews’ considered Jesus to be an outsider, a usurper. He preached new form of monotheism.

Remember, the Samaritan also had the Torah, etc. Many of the other people in the Middle-East believed in One God, too. Also a lot of Graeco-Romans were already virtually ‘philosophical monotheists’. I think Jesus also draw on this tradition, especially in recognising the immortality of the soul, etc., which some ‘Jews’ don’t believe in, even today.

So, we can (truly) call Christ (and Mary) a Christian. What about St. Peter? He was the first Pope, the second head (after Jesus) of the One, Holy Roman Catholic Church. Surely, you cannot say St. Peter was not Catholic?

But as for His background, all we can truly say is He was a Galilean monotheist, living in the Roman Empire, whose family lived according to the locally accepted religious practices. Since what we call ‘Judaism’ today didn’t exist (although it had its roots in the Pharisaic movement), it makes little send to call him one. I most modern Jews would agree with this?

After all, the kind of things Christ said (“I and the Father are One”), no Jew would say (it would seem blasphemy)…

 

[Reuben_J]

It was only called Palestine after the Jewish revolt in 135 AD as an insult to the Jewish people. Palestine comes from the Latin word for Philistine, an ancient enemy of Israel.Jesus would have never called himself a Palestinian, but he did call himself a Jew.

Thanks for the information . … not surprising that Palestine sounds like Philistine . . Wonder whether the Arabs ever acknowledge this?

Palestine today is pretty much a Muslim country and from news media report, they’re more of the radical sect especially in Gaza. Not much place for Christians there actually. And many of the Palestinian towns it seems to have this Islamic radical elements.

 

[ltwin]

No, no, you are forgetting the Gospel. Remember, He broke the ‘rules’ of washing hands, Sabbath, etc. Remember, ‘nothing that goes into a man can make him unclean’. And thus He did away with the old law, with its rules and regulation (to quote Paul).

He didn’t “break the law”. He fulfilled it. The rules that he broke were not part of the actual Law of Moses. They were simply arbitrary legal interpretations and traditions that certain Jewish schools of thought had placed on people.

Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

This is why the Jewish authorities wanted to kill Him (and, in fact, did).

That may be partly what they accused him of, but even the Jewish authorities knew there was little to no evidence that Jesus broke the law. This is made clear in the gospel accounts because the people the Jewish authorities got to be “witnesses” gave such unconvincing testimony.The Jewish leaders knew there was no evidence that he had broken the Law of Moses.

The accusation that stuck was the one of him claiming to be a false Messiah and king of the Jews. This is what the Romans killed him for because the claim was essentially treason and sedition against Rome.

Look, to say Christ is not a Christian is like saying Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist.

A lot of Muslims say that Abraham, Jesus, etc. were actually Muslims, because they believed in the One True God, and followed His laws.

I don’t know anything about Buddha. What I can say is that as a Christian I don’t go around saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Christians, because the Christian religion did not exist when they lived. That has nothing to do with their status within the Christian religion.

Remember, also Galilee was called “Galilee of the Gentiles”- a Jesus was a Galilean, of course.

Part of the Galilee was called “Galilee of the Gentiles.” This is because the Galilee was divided between Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee was called “Galilee of the Gentiles” or “the Nations” because the majority of its population was non-Jewish.

Check out the Gospel of John- it is clear the ‘Jews’ considered Jesus to be an outsider, a usurper. He preached new form of monotheism.

They didn’t like him because he showed them up, and they were concerned about the political consequences if he were to take up arms against Rome. However, they always considered him to be a Jew. His Jewishness was never in question.

Remember, the Samaritan also had the Torah, etc. Many of the other people in the Middle-East believed in One God, too. Also a lot of Graeco-Romans were already virtually ‘philosophical monotheists’. I think Jesus also draw on this tradition, especially in recognising the immortality of the soul, etc., which some ‘Jews’ don’t believe in, even today.

The Pharisees already believed in the Resurrection of the Body. While some Jews, notably the “liberal” Saducees rejected the idea, the concept of the immortality of the soul was present in Judaism already before Jesus was even born.

And the existence of non-Jewish monotheists has nothing to do with the question of Jesus’ ethnic identity. He was a Jewish man from Galilee from the tribe of Judah. That was his identity. He never identified as a “Palestinian monotheist.”

So, we can (truly) call Christ (and Mary) a Christian.

Sure, if you want to.

What about St. Peter? He was the first Pope, the second head (after Jesus) of the One, Holy Roman Catholic Church. Surely, you cannot say St. Peter was not Catholic?

You didn’t like “Greco-Roman monotheist”?

But as for His background, all we can truly say is He was a Galilean monotheist, living in the Roman Empire, whose family lived according to the locally accepted religious practices.

No, that is not “all we can truly say.” He was a Jew, living in the ancient homeland of the Jews, who worshiped at the Jewish temple and taught in the Jewish synagogues, and lived according to the Jewish law.

Since what we call ‘Judaism’ today didn’t exist (although it had its roots in the Pharisaic movement), it makes little send to call him one. I most modern Jews would agree with this?

Dr. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Professor of Judaic Studies at Brown University and a rabbi, wrote the following: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html

Was Jesus a Jew? Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem where he was under the authority of priests… He lived, was born, lived, died, taught as a Jew. This is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel text. What’s striking is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels make no pretense that he wasn’t. The gospels have no sense yet that Jesus was anything other than a Jew. The gospels don’t even have a sense that he came to found a new religion, an idea completely foreign to all the gospel text, and completely foreign to Paul. That is an idea which comes about only later . . .

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Israel was established out of necessity because no one would take in the Jews escaping the Holocaust. I find it astonishing that we can condemn the Jewish State from afar. We don’t live in their ‘neighborhood’. We aren’t surrounded by people who hate us. I don’t think we can relate to their decision, nor can we understand their ancient claims to the land they have established as their own. I think it would be better to let Israel run their own affairs and, if we disagree, we should do so privately so as not to weaken their standing in a very dangerous region.

I do sympathize with Palestinians as well. They are living in terrible conditions. Especially because the violence of the few has created these conditions for the many. Can Israel do more to relieve the suffering of women and children in Palestine? I don’t know.

But, to be fair, I wonder, would we show better charity and restrain in the same circumstances? Already, our security and rhetoric towards Middle Easterners has changed drastically because of threats from the Middle East, and yet we are so far away and certainly not the minority in our own region.

 

[Qoeleth]

The accusation that stuck was the one of him claiming to be a false Messiah and king of the Jews. This is what the Romans killed him for because the claim was essentially treason and sedition against Rome.

The Pharisees already believed in the Resurrection of the Body. While some Jews, notably the “liberal” Saducees rejected the idea, the concept of the immortality of the soul was present in Judaism already before Jesus was even born.

You didn’t like “Greco-Roman monotheist”?

Oh, I thought that the Saducees were the ultra-conservative sect? Being the official priestly group: while the Pharisees (believing in the soul, the resurrection, etc.) were somewhat closer to the Christians (e.g. the Pharisees defending Paul)?

I think “Gaeco-Roman monotheist” is a pretty good term, actually. Jesus must have spoke at least some Greek (how else did He converse with Pilate?) And James (his close relative) wrote his epistle in good Greek- as well as John, one of the original disciples. And he spoke to Roman soldiers, who I doubt would have learnt Aramaic. Paul obviously was familiar with Greek philosophy and poetry. So sure, the early Christians were Graeco-Roman monotheists, in a way, but nonetheless fully Christians.

There is also the tradition (no longer current) of referring to Christ as the ‘blond Rabbi’ (it was used by various German 19th Century scholars)- the idea being the people of the ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ were of somewhat different (more Northern) ethnicity.

There’s also a movement of saying Jesus was black- a not implausible position.

Anyway, I think we cannot say Jesus was of any particular ‘ethnic’ identity- since He was the Son of God Himself, and the Blessed Virgin (who, free of sin, transcends in her beauty and perfection, all races).

I think we can all imagine Christ as being of our own race (if it helps)- when in reality He was above all races.

 

[ltwin]

Oh, I thought that the Saducees were the ultra-conservative sect? Being the official priestly group: while the Pharisees (believing in the soul, the resurrection, etc.) were somewhat closer to the Christians (e.g. the Pharisees defending Paul)?

The Sadducees were “conservative” only in the sense of maintaining Temple rituals. They were far more liberal when it came to incorporating Greco-Roman culture into Judaism. From the Jewish Virtual Libraray:

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste, but they were also liberal in their willingness to incorporate Hellenism into their lives, something the Pharisees opposed. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. The main focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.

In Acts 23, the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin defended Paul because Paul was himself a Pharisee:

6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

There is also the tradition (no longer current) of referring to Christ as the ‘blond Rabbi’ (it was used by various German 19th Century scholars)- the idea being the people of the ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ were of somewhat different (more Northern) ethnicity.

There’s also a movement of saying Jesus was black- a not implausible position.

Wow. OK. None of that is plausible. The first idea reeks of 19th century anti-Semitism (Jesus just could not possibly be related to those pesky Jews–I"m sure he looked like a white Scandinavian).

Anyway, I think we cannot say Jesus was of any particular ‘ethnic’ identity- since He was the Son of God Himself, and the Blessed Virgin (who, free of sin, transcends in her beauty and perfection, all races).

I think we can all imagine Christ as being of our own race (if it helps)- when in reality He was above all races.

And yet he was incarnated. He was a man. He had human ancestry, which was Jewish. You’re free to imagine Jesus looking anyway you like, but none of us are entitled to rewrite history.