B
bpbasilphx
Guest
If even the relgion of the OT (which does not resemble modern Judaism) could offer salvation, would the Crucifixion have been necessary to save us?
- Status
W
Writer
Guest
A quick book recommendation for the OP would be ***Salvation is from the Jews ***by Schoeman. Website is salvationisfromthejews.com/ .
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
You have to remember though, the Jews didn’t write the Old Testament…
GOD DID!
The Jewish people are wrong about Jesus-
Look at their track record:
They persecuted pretty much all of their prophets, always turned from God to false idols, always condoned sin…
No offense to the Jewish people, but is it*** really*** a surprise that they got *this one *wrong, too?
And it has been what, 2400 years since God sent the Jews a prophet???
GOD DID!
The Jewish people are wrong about Jesus-
Look at their track record:
They persecuted pretty much all of their prophets, always turned from God to false idols, always condoned sin…
No offense to the Jewish people, but is it*** really*** a surprise that they got *this one *wrong, too?
And it has been what, 2400 years since God sent the Jews a prophet???
K
KindredSoul
Guest
That is still not an indictment against Christianity. That is an indictment against the misunderstanding thereof.
But Christianity isn’t the sum of what its alleged followers do, neither spiritually nor historically. Therefore the historical reality of Christians doesn’t necessarily equal the reality of Christianity.
I am not familiar enough with Islam to say whether or not those elements of Islamic scripture truly mean what he said or whether or not he was misinterpreting them. Many Muslims would say the latter, and until I have become quite familiar with the Koran in all its contexts, I am not an authority on that matter and can only give the religion itself the benefit of the doubt. You will find that I am not one of the rabid-anti-Islam people, and that lack of familiarity with the religion is exactly why I do not claim the right to make an indictment against the religion itself. Since Islam has no infallible source of knowing whether or not I am in line with the right interpretation of their scriptures, even then I cannot be sure that I’m not misunderstanding it, although if I were familiar enough I could at least make an educated guess as to whether or not bin Laden was in line with genuine Muslim beliefs. I clearly do not believe in Islam, and find theological fault in certain things I do know about it, but it has nothing to do with the flaws of those Muslims who are violent. I am not quite familiar enough with its scriptures to say in confidence that they are not grossly misinterpreting their religion.
I am, however familiar enough with Christianity to say with confidence that anyone who acts as the Nazis did and cites their Christian beliefs as the reason is misinterpreting it.
Clearly, I am not picking and choosing religions here based on what is convenient for my own religion, given my above response about Islam. A religion should be judged on its own merits and claims, and not on the imperfections of its followers or how imperfectly they implement or misunderstand it. That would be like judging a just and good king whose entire country had rebelled against him (in his name, somehow, due to, say, obtuse stupidity about what he wanted just to drive the point home) by how his rebellious subjects behaved. It’s simply not right. If I wouldn’t do that to this allegorical king, nor will I do it to a religion, whether or not that religion is my own.
I disagree. I believe we have to admit the historical reality of Christians (as a universal whole including every single Christian) has never consisted of purity without sin and error. Christianity is what Christianity claims to be, not what individual Christians may make it appear to be.
On one suggestion (if I read your intent correctly) we agree about what my assertion would mean: The historical reality of Christianity has never yet been manifest on a grand (say, nation-wide/worldwide) scale. Now, to say it has never been manifest historically would be wrong. It has been manifest in Jesus Christ Himself, it has been manifest in the saints, and any individuals who followed Christianity truly, and all of these are historical individuals who really existed. Likewise, certain religious communities down to this day may hold a true manifestation of Christianity that is observable, but history books are rarely interested in such small scale (compared to populations of entire countries) manifestations. Still, just because Christianity’s true manifestation is rarely the subject of history books doesn’t mean it isn’t historically observable, nor that what is recorded in those books (all the unChristian behavior) is that true manifestation. Christianity has been manifest historically at many various points, and is not just an abstraction…it just gets overlooked by the text books.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
TO AJtheMan:
You want proof of Christianity. Well, here is some stuff to consider:
Look at the situation. When Christ preached, it wasn’t only to a few people in the middle of nowhere. He would go into towns and cities, where there were many people of all ages, from all over the place. Word spread about this man who could, “heal the sick, and spoke about God in a new way.” Multitudes of people would come to him, carrying their sick friends and relatives, or just to hear Him talk.
Most of the books in the New Testament were written around 25-35 years after Christ, meaning that the tens of thousands of people who had seen this Man perform miracles and preach were still alive. Many people who themselves were healed were still alive. Remember, it was only a couple decades later.
Next, consider the apostles and the other** 502** people who had seen Christ after the Resurrection. (This number is according to Paul. He wrote this at a time when, according to his epistle, some were “asleep,” but most were still alive.)
Use some common sense: Why would the Apostles suffer the remaining decades of their lives in persecution and eventually give them up as martyrs for something that was a lie?
Instead of speculating all day about this or that, just say the obvious- they wouldn’t!
Now look at Paul. He was a Pharisee, a very learned man…and he was anti-Christian. He was infamous for persecuting Christians. Well, he had his famous conversion experience around the year AD 33. One day, while on the road to Damascus (on the way to arrest Christians) with two partners, the three of them were engulfed by a bright light. Jesus Christ had appeared to them. Christ told Paul to go to Jerusalem to the church. There, he met Peter and James. (As a matter of fact, when he told the Christians that he now believed in Christ, they afraid and thought that he was tricking them.) He was baptized, and went on to spend the rest of his life traveling with the apostles and preaching the gospel, eventually dying as a martyr.
This man, who had this life-changing conversion and personally*** knew*** and traveled with the Apostles, wrote many letters, some of which we have today in the New Testament. In them, he talks about his conversion.
For example, take Galatians, Chapter 1:
*“I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.”
*
(this letter is accepted as authentic by virtually all historians, along with the Epistles of Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon- the rest have been disputed among scholars)
(To quote from) Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
*
“And the presbyter said this. Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”*
Irenaeus( a disciple of Polycarp and John the Apostle) wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1):* “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”*
**This is by no means the only evidence **(and I am by no means a historian), but when it boils down to it, the only question is whether or not you think the Apostles (and the several hundred other disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection) were lying or not, if they gave their lives for a lie that they made up.
In my opinion, other religions don’t have anywhere near the same level of historicity as Christianity.
You want proof of Christianity. Well, here is some stuff to consider:
Look at the situation. When Christ preached, it wasn’t only to a few people in the middle of nowhere. He would go into towns and cities, where there were many people of all ages, from all over the place. Word spread about this man who could, “heal the sick, and spoke about God in a new way.” Multitudes of people would come to him, carrying their sick friends and relatives, or just to hear Him talk.
Most of the books in the New Testament were written around 25-35 years after Christ, meaning that the tens of thousands of people who had seen this Man perform miracles and preach were still alive. Many people who themselves were healed were still alive. Remember, it was only a couple decades later.
Next, consider the apostles and the other** 502** people who had seen Christ after the Resurrection. (This number is according to Paul. He wrote this at a time when, according to his epistle, some were “asleep,” but most were still alive.)
Use some common sense: Why would the Apostles suffer the remaining decades of their lives in persecution and eventually give them up as martyrs for something that was a lie?
Instead of speculating all day about this or that, just say the obvious- they wouldn’t!
Now look at Paul. He was a Pharisee, a very learned man…and he was anti-Christian. He was infamous for persecuting Christians. Well, he had his famous conversion experience around the year AD 33. One day, while on the road to Damascus (on the way to arrest Christians) with two partners, the three of them were engulfed by a bright light. Jesus Christ had appeared to them. Christ told Paul to go to Jerusalem to the church. There, he met Peter and James. (As a matter of fact, when he told the Christians that he now believed in Christ, they afraid and thought that he was tricking them.) He was baptized, and went on to spend the rest of his life traveling with the apostles and preaching the gospel, eventually dying as a martyr.
This man, who had this life-changing conversion and personally*** knew*** and traveled with the Apostles, wrote many letters, some of which we have today in the New Testament. In them, he talks about his conversion.
For example, take Galatians, Chapter 1:
*“I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.”
*
(this letter is accepted as authentic by virtually all historians, along with the Epistles of Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon- the rest have been disputed among scholars)
I know it isn’t technically “proof,” but it makes a good point. (It would be like Osama bin Laden all of a sudden saying he was sorry and wanting to become an American citizen.)
Look at the Gospels (I won’t go into all of them, just Mark). Mark is the earliest written of the four, written around 65 AD…and it was written by a disciple of Peter.(To quote from) Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
*
“And the presbyter said this. Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”*
Irenaeus( a disciple of Polycarp and John the Apostle) wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1):* “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”*
**This is by no means the only evidence **(and I am by no means a historian), but when it boils down to it, the only question is whether or not you think the Apostles (and the several hundred other disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus after the Resurrection) were lying or not, if they gave their lives for a lie that they made up.
In my opinion, other religions don’t have anywhere near the same level of historicity as Christianity.
C
Contarini
Guest
I understand the theological argument, but I think that simply as a matter of establishing credibility and not annoying non-Catholics unnecessarily Catholics should avoid saying things like “how can 1 billion people be wrong,” etc.
All it takes is this: when claiming large numbers would benefit you, be sure to cite statistics that refer to such things as Mass attendance. You don’t have to give up your theological claim about the significance of baptism (a claim with which I agree, by the way).
The point I’m trying to make is that Catholics are happy to take the advantages that come with having huge numbers and immense historical significance. But those same characteristics come with drawbacks, like the fact that Hitler was baptized Catholic.
I apologize for using the word “rightly” wrongly.
I stand by “understandable” however. It is not right to hold Catholicism responsible for what baptized Catholics who do not practice the faith do. But nonetheless it remains true that people who do this are using the word “Catholic” in the same sense in which Catholics often use it.Edwin
S
scapularkid8
Guest
Hitler was a Jew. Honest answer.
(From what I’ve learned over the years, his mother was Jewish. This makes him part of the Tribe according to their own definitions.)
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Oh I quite agree. If we believe Catholicism has been true since Christianity began, then we must also concede that numbers have little to do with it since at the beginning there would have been less than even ten thousand adherents.
Again, agreed. I don’t necessarily think the numbers argument is the best one, but even insofar as it might be useful, I agree with you that we must include in those numbers Catholics who believe in Catholicism as it truly is, not the Hitlers of the world.
Agreed yet again.
I suppose the distinction is this: Understandable in the sense of “I can see how they make their mistake,” is appropriate…but Understandable in the sense of “Justified” (which is often how the word is used, though you seem not to have meant it that way), as to justify some people’s continued insistence that Hitler’s nominal Catholicism should reflect badly upon Catholicism itself even though he wasn’t practicing or faithful, I do not agree with. But on this particular point we seem to agree, apart from semantics.I apologize for using the word “rightly” wrongly.
By the way, I accept and am genuinely grateful for your apology.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
J
jake23
Guest
You are going down the wrong path for the wrong reasons! You are verry young and it sounds like you are lacking in biblical understanding. It is not wrong to questions and search, but to make action without in depth research and prayer is foolish and disrespectful to God. As am educated person of the Torah and Bible, a Catholic (converted) and a half brother to two sisters from israel who are Jewish, I believe that you will find the Catholic church is where you belong if with an open heart educate yourself thoroughly and pray sincerely. Good Luck!Hi all!
I really don’t know where to start, so I’m just going to dive in.
I’m 20 years old, born and raised Catholic in a strong Catholic house that
practices.
My whole life I have followed my beliefs without much question, but until
recently.
I have been blessed to encounter Jews in my life recently over the course of attending college. After talking with one friend
in particular (Benjamin), I got curious/serious about what they actually believe
regarding God and Jesus, and I’ve been researching for a couple months now.
I have to say, from what I have seen so far, the cards are not stacked in Jesus’
favor that he was the Messiah by jewish definition (from what I’ve found).
Doubts are also beginning to surface for me on why/how God would become a man,
why a follower of this man (Paul) would say Gentiles don’t have to follow the
Torah, and why the concept of a Trinity could ever exist (“Hear, Israel…The
Lord is One”).
Things I find attractive about Judaism are many:
I’ve always been pulled toward the sense of family that they seem to share, even
among the less religious or even secular jews. I don’t see that among Christians
which is sad. I love the idea that the Torah was revealed to all of them/their
ancestors in front of their faces (as opposed to an upper room, a temple
corridor, a mountain cave [Muhammed/Islam, Joseph Smith/LDS]).
I love the view that sin is a very personal matter between God and the sinner to
be worked out between just these two entities. I love the respect they have for
God’s Word and Presence, all among other things.
Well, I don’t know what type of response I’m even expecting, so just reply as
you want and we can discuss from there. I’m just curious what a former Jew would
say to a Catholic looking seriously at Judaism. Or if there are any Jews or former Jews here I could talk with? thanks
S
scapularkid8
Guest
To help give an update on my journey/research I want to share that I just finished watching a PBS miniseries (I actually didn’t even finish it, because I got all the information I needed haha) on the history of the Israelites.
Although this took a pretty secular viewpoint, I could see that even from a secular presentation, the progression of the Jewish people in response and relation to God set up almost, if not perfectly, the theological and ethical climate for the Word of God/Jesus to come among them as a final and full revelation. It was almost beautiful to me how coherent and obvious this climax was, even from a secular presentation which mentioned little to no spiritual insight about their history other than what was important to know about the Temple and later the sectarian divisions.
Highly worth my time, and definitely a valuable finding in my quest
Although this took a pretty secular viewpoint, I could see that even from a secular presentation, the progression of the Jewish people in response and relation to God set up almost, if not perfectly, the theological and ethical climate for the Word of God/Jesus to come among them as a final and full revelation. It was almost beautiful to me how coherent and obvious this climax was, even from a secular presentation which mentioned little to no spiritual insight about their history other than what was important to know about the Temple and later the sectarian divisions.
Highly worth my time, and definitely a valuable finding in my quest
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, if your questions could be answered by a PBS miniseries they obviously weren’t that big a deal in the first place. Sorry that we all got concerned on your behalf for nothing. Perhaps you could just jump to the PBS stage and not get us all worked up next time
Edwin
K
KindredSoul
Guest
If that means what it seems to mean, let us praise the Lord for showing you with such clarity how Jesus is the climax and fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It seems that your quest has taken a turn that will lead you to remain Home. Praise God. He truly works in mysterious ways!
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
S
scapularkid8
Guest
I’m just saying the presentation by PBS was convincing for Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah. I’m not done just yet!Well, if your questions could be answered by a PBS miniseries they obviously weren’t that big a deal in the first place. Sorry that we all got concerned on your behalf for nothing. Perhaps you could just jump to the PBS stage and not get us all worked up next time
Edwin
K
kalt
Guest
I’ve never paid attention to Hitler’s religion. Some say that he was Catholic. Others say that since someone in his family was Jewish, he was Jewish by birth.
Does anyone know the truth? I thought it was one of his grandparents who was Jewish. Is there definitive proof, or is it conjecture?
G
geometer
Guest
I do not believe that Jews could consider him to be Jewish. His mother would have to be an observant Jewess at the time of his birth. As far as I know she was practicing catholicism. His father was not a Jew and that might mean a lot of disrespect for him by some jews, if he had ever tried to be accepted as jewish. However, I have never heard that he had any aspirations to Judaism for himself.
If his mothers parents were Jewish, how was he treated by them? Did they disrespect his mother for marrying a non Jew. It is said that he doted on his mother, and would not tolerate any disrespect of her.
N
Nita
Guest
It may not be in their thought, but it’s in their Scripture.
Is 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
Edit note: Whoops, totally missed that there were 4 pages and not just one!!! But will leave my post in anyway.
S
scapularkid8
Guest
I guess if we never know or find out what religious/cultural affiliation he had we can just go with the proof that’s in the pudding:
Every Jew is a HUGE mama’s boy
F
Follow_Yeshua
Guest
Scapular,I guess if we never know or find out what religious/cultural affiliation he had we can just go with the proof that’s in the pudding:
Every Jew is a HUGE mama’s boy
The only reason why I asked what faith that evil lil monster was is because when I was more combative as a younger Christian all ever heard was…Catholic this and Catholic that!
We are Catholics Gods only Church!
We are Catholics Keepers of the Faith
We are Catholics We made the bible!
and so on…
So when PJPII went to the Holocaust memorial in 00 the Jewish religious leaders were actually waiting for some type of official apology from Rome in which he said…
“As bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church, motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love, and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place.”
My first thought was Ok now its ok to use the term Christian. I mean look at the top right hand of everybody’s profile it says “Catholic” Yes and I do know you guys are Christian.
But the Jewish community was looking for an apology from the RCC because of the supposed blind eye they turned on the whole holocaust. I wasn’t there so I don’t know if there was wrong doing.
I just thought that was a nice play on words to Canopy the whole ordeal on us other Christians.
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
I think that when in doubt you can consider the apostles. They would know whether or not He rose from the dead and they saw it and were willing to die rather than renounce it.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s accurate to say they turned a blind eye to the holocaust.
Before WW2 the future pope Pious xxii sais nazis are “are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult”. If they had gone too far against the nazis they could have started persecuting catholics too. Remember the vatican was conveniently located in (at the time) fascist Rome.
I don’t think Paul ever said that. Which verse are you talking about?
You know how the Torah commanded the Isrealites to use, for instance, burnt offerings, to attone for sins? Basicly, Jesus did this, only He took everyone’s sins instead of just one person’s. That’s why He’s often called the lamb of God.
If it was an apology for any wrongdoings commited by Christians, wasn’t Germany mostly protestant? (Just FYI before anyone uses this to bash Christians, Hitler spoke negatively of religion)
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s accurate to say they turned a blind eye to the holocaust.
Before WW2 the future pope Pious xxii sais nazis are “are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult”. If they had gone too far against the nazis they could have started persecuting catholics too. Remember the vatican was conveniently located in (at the time) fascist Rome.
- Status