How do I defend Catholicism against The jewish religion?

[Imprimartin]

cabaret:

Well, depending on how Orthodox you are, ‘Torah is from Heaven’, as for the rest, before I answer, I’d like to ask a question.

Given the fact that I’ve introduced the idea of a highly legalistic religion, why (outside the Torah) would it matter if the rest was the ‘Word of G-d’ or whether it was just ‘inspired’ writing? Or, putting it another way - just how large do the Constitution and Bill Of Rights have to be relative to the size of ‘Case Law’?

Notice, by the way, I don’t use the ‘G-d’ semi-convention - God isn’t the name of ‘God’

Cabaret,
ON THE USE OF G-D: Good point. I was just trying to be sensitive since I’ve briefly apoken to jews who do use the convention. I’ve heard them use the phrase “the G word”, “the E word” and one other (I forget).

ON THE SCOPE OF SCRIPTURE: From a christian (and more specifically, catholic) point of view, we have defined what is scripture. Either the whole book is or is not the word of God. We also have the same categories as you (the prophets, the law, etc) but whether something is the word of God is different way of looking at it. And so we can have a “law” which is inspired, but we can also have a “law” which is not inspired.

I hope this answers your question.

Martin

 

[cabaret]

Imprimartin:

Cabaret,
ON THE USE OF G-D: Good point. I was just trying to be sensitive since I’ve briefly apoken to jews who do use the convention. I’ve heard them use the phrase “the G word”, “the E word” and one other (I forget).

I used to use the ‘-’ but decided, eventually, that I found it a bit pretentious.

ON THE SCOPE OF SCRIPTURE: From a christian (and more specifically, catholic) point of view, we have defined what is scripture. Either the whole book is or is not the word of God. We also have the same categories as you (the prophets, the law, etc) but whether something is the word of God is different way of looking at it. And so we can have a “law” which is inspired, but we can also have a “law” which is not inspired.

We’re back to the paradigmatic problem again. There’s Torah, all 613 rules of it (many being non applicable because the refer to Temple activities), and the rest is inspired insight – meanwhile, outside the ‘canon’, there’s Talmud – a mixture of all sorts of things but important, mainly, for what could be described as ‘precedent case law’ (the considerations/rows of the sages, ancient rabbis, on a multitude of issues) – and considerations of later influential figures. You can’t understand a Jewish position on anything without taking all of it into consideration – as a Catholic, you’ll probably appreciate this ‘Tradition’ aspect, except, of course you have a kind of monarchical religious center which determines the answer.

I’ve often thought of the difference between Judaism and Christianity as being between ‘low belief, high activity’ and ‘high belief, low activity’ by which I mean that Judaism is focused very much on behavior rather than belief – ‘Law’ is what governs behavior but Law is a matter of interpretation – the origin of the old ‘two Jews, three opinions’ joke.

Christianity, it’s always seemed to me, is terribly focused on complex matters of belief – Christians are divided on what you believe, we’re divided much more on what we do (beliefs about the Law). So, to Christians, Scripture has to be a predictive (inevitably?) and interpretive whole (“Out of all this, what are we to believe”), while to us, that’s not the point at all – to us it’s a kind of Law library (“Out of all this, what are we to do?”)

 

[Ghosty]

Cabaret: I’d say you’re very insightful about the differences between Christianity and Judaism on the whole. I would also say, however, that Catholicism has a very high degree of “What do we do,” as well, nearly as much as Orthodox Judaism once you get into it. The bulk of things like the Catechism are devoted to belief, but “what should we do” follows hot on the heels. Just check out our Code of Canon Law sometime

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

(“Out of all this, what are we to believe”), while to us, that’s not the point at all – to us it’s a kind of Law library (“Out of all this, what are we to do?”)

Jesus teaches us the heart of the law and that our actions are to be born of a spirit of goodness as opposed to sometimes misapplying the letter of the law. Jesus taught that sometimes it is better to serve a higher law by not observing a lesser law. He taught us to discern what true human goods are and to act according the the true human good. He explained to the rabbis that sometimes they actually failed by observing a law. Jesus called this straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

For example, if a form of work needed to be done for someone in dire need, we would say that to strictly observe the sabbath and not help someone would be wrong.

Sometimes the interpretation of a law can miss the spirit of the law. Again, consider the sabbath. The idea of the sabbath is to rest and enjoy God, family, and friends. I had some Hassidic neighbors who could not drive or use the phone on the sabbath. I would notice that even in snow and cold they would walk miles to the temple with young children and the father had a limp. They were observing the law by not driving. I admire their dedication, but these miles through the snow (sometimes multiple times in a day) looked far from restful. The next day on Sunday, we would simply drive to Church and relax in a heated car. This seemed much more restful to me.

Jesus teaches us that by God’s Spirit we can begin to think as God thinks (not on His level of course) and discern the right course of action.

We still have laws but we focus them on the purpose and the principal of what God truly desires based on what is loving and in the best interest of people for their true good.

That is not to say that Jewish thought has not advanced regarding law and many Jews today are probably much less legalistic than in centuries past. I also consider that Christian philosophy has entered Jewish thought a little bit regarding law and perhaps some other beliefs.

Great Conversation (you are very interesting),
Greg

 

[Imprimartin]

Also, I would argue that the whole jewish legalistic thing was not without merit. I believe that the church teaches (though I could be wrong) that the legalism of Old Testament (OT) judaism was rightly placed and enforced by God at the time. God had a reason for it.

Martin

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

Cabaret: I’d say you’re very insightful about the differences between Christianity and Judaism on the whole. I would also say, however, that Catholicism has a very high degree of “What do we do,” as well, nearly as much as Orthodox Judaism once you get into it. The bulk of things like the Catechism are devoted to belief, but “what should we do” follows hot on the heels. Just check out our Code of Canon Law sometime

Oh, I don’t doubt that at all, though I think you exaggerate somewhat on the question of equivalence with the really ‘frum’!

I was really talking about the ‘focus’, the ‘paradigm’.

 

[cabaret]

Ciao Greg

Greg_McPherran:

Jesus teaches .us the heart of the law and that our actions are to be born of a spirit of goodness as opposed to sometimes misapplying the letter of the law . . . .

To which a Jew will inevitably reply: “he wasn’t exactly original in that.” Many of the ancients, almost inevitably including Hillel, said much the same things before Jesus came along and rowed about it before he did – one of the reasons I said that he often sounds like a Pharisee. All these sorts of arguments exist in the context of ‘Oral Torah’, the non-canonical commentary on the law – the jurisprudence aspect, if you like.

In that aspect of his teaching, I’d say he was well in line with the rows of the time – and well in line with the great Jewish tradition of endlessly rowing! It may be, of course, that one problem lies in the numerous meanings, at the time, of the word ‘perushim’ itself.

Sometimes the interpretation of a law can miss the spirit of the law.

For some of us, the real importance of observance, the inconveniences involved, lies in being constantly reminded of what one is doing it for.

We still have laws but we focus them on the purpose and the principal of what God truly desires based on what is loving and in the best interest of people for their true good.

Perhaps we just like rowing about it more

I also consider that Christian philosophy has entered Jewish thought a little bit regarding law and perhaps some other beliefs.

I rather doubt that but the archeology of ideas is a very complex subject – as I’ve said, what you may think that Jesus introduced was there before his time.

 

[cabaret]

Greg

Just to add that, after Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema):

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.”

Possibly the most quoted Jewish text is Micah 6:8:

“He has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the Lord requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk modestly with your God,
Then will your name achieve wisdom.”

 

[Ghosty]

Cabaret: I don’t generally hear Catholics say that Jesus was somehow “original”, but rather that he was highlighting the proper observance, regardless of whether or not it had been done or said before. The Church teaches that Jesus IS the Law by definition, not that he presented some novel interpretations of it. In other words the Church believes he settled the matter rather than adding to it (“I have come to fulfill the law”). Remember that the point of Catholicism is not how novel Jesus is, but rather the opposite. Almost the entire basis of following him initially had to do with his ties to the ancient Jewish beliefs and practices, most notably his ties to Pesach and Yom Kippur, hence his moniker “Lamb of God”.

As for your post directed at me, I understand you were talking about the focus, I was just making an observation that has always amused me. Remember that I myself was pursuing Orthodox Judaism just prior to becoming Catholic, and my major jumping point was in answering for myself “What would Orthodox Judaism look like with the coming of the Messiah?”

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

Cabaret: I don’t generally hear Catholics say that Jesus was somehow “original”, but rather that he was highlighting the proper observance, regardless of whether or not it had been done or said before. The Church teaches that Jesus IS the Law by definition, not that he presented some novel interpretations of it. In other words the Church believes he settled the matter rather than adding to it (“I have come to fulfill the law”). Remember that the point of Catholicism is not how novel Jesus is, but rather the opposite. Almost the entire basis of following him initially had to do with his ties to the ancient Jewish beliefs and practices, most notably his ties to Pesach and Yom Kippur, hence his moniker “Lamb of God”.

Remember, I was trying to answer specific points suggesting difference in interpretation which, actually, they’re not (in that they’re one side of a pre-existing argument) and, of course, if one believed that Jesus was God, he would inevitably, in some way, embody Torah.

Ghosty:

As for your post directed at me, I understand you were talking about the focus, I was just making an observation that has always amused me. Remember that I myself was pursuing Orthodox Judaism just prior to becoming Catholic, and my major jumping point was in answering for myself “What would Orthodox Judaism look like with the coming of the Messiah?”

I would imagine that that we’d all be very, very Orthodox - Torah is Torah, ‘eternally’ - with the return of the Temple ‘cult’ as well, of course.

Why would one expect differently? [slight tongue-in-cheek]

 

[Ghosty]

Of course we’d be Orthodox, which is what I whole-heartedly believe that orthodox Catholics are. The Law is certainly eternal. The difference comes largely from “how do we interpret and apply the Law”? Your point about the Temple Cult is key, however, because that’s precisely what the Catholic Church upholds. My major reason for becoming Catholic (though I also studied the Orthodox Church for the same reasons) was the continuation of the Temple, the Temple Sacrifice, the priesthood, ect. The Temple, combined with the Law, is the supreme focus of my beliefs, and the very foundation of the Church.

 

[cabaret]

Ghosty:

Of course we’d be Orthodox, which is what I whole-heartedly believe that orthodox Catholics are. The Law is certainly eternal. The difference comes largely from “how do we interpret and apply the Law”? Your point about the Temple Cult is key, however, because that’s precisely what the Catholic Church upholds. My major reason for becoming Catholic (though I also studied the Orthodox Church for the same reasons) was the continuation of the Temple, the Temple Sacrifice, the priesthood, ect. The Temple, combined with the Law, is the supreme focus of my beliefs, and the very foundation of the Church.

Ignoring for a moment the ‘meta’ question of your belief in the divinity of a particular man, that a man could be God, this is more than a little a-historic, wouldn’t you say, given the huge differences between Sadducee beliefs and those of Catholicism? That’s several paradigm shifts and speaks, not a little, of inventing a Judaism to which you want to be heirs.

Meanwhile, of course, there’s the ‘meta’ question, that chasm that will always lie between us.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

All these sorts of arguments exist in the context of ‘Oral Torah’, the non-canonical commentary on the law – the jurisprudence aspect, if you like.

I don’t doubt it. For example, I wonder how many Jewish people who associate baptism with Christianity, realize that baptism was a movement in Judaism. This is seen in John the Baptist for example (I think also the Essenes?).

Christians have a new view of the law because of faith in the resurrection. The laws that Jewish people observe and the reasons that they are observed are transformed by Christianity (Christians believe). St. Paul spoke much about this.

We are so awed and transformed by the love of the Father in Jesus, that nothing else matters. St. Paul goes so far as to say he counts all else as rubbish (I don’t think he meant that disrespectfully, but to emphasize that the life of the Holy Spirit in him had put an end to his old life and concerns.) All that Christians do is to flow from the love, grace, and faith from God in Jesus. It is a new existence. St. Paul says we are a new creation. Such is our belief in Jesus and His resurrection. The law no longer has the same meaning or purpose. All “laws” now are part of living our eternal life starting here on earth and continuing after death. We have a true faith in this because of our faith in the resurrection. We are taught that the Spirit that raised Jesus lives in Christians and will also raise them and bring them to heaven after death. The centrality of the belief in the resurrection is indicated by St. Paul’s statement that if Jesus had not risen from the dead, our faith would be in vain (regardless of how good a teacher He was, etc.).

cabaret:

For some of us, the real importance of observance, the inconveniences involved, lies in being constantly reminded of what one is doing it for.

That’s fair. It really depends on your purpose for following a given law.

In summary, I do not disagree that Jewish thought about the law was indeed more than a suface understanding and they sought the deeper meanings. Jesus made it clear that He came first for His people (the chosen people of God) and then to the Gentiles. However, He also made it clear that He did come for all humans, no question. We are reminded in Scripture that we are united with the Jewish family in Jesus. At the same time, Christians believe that what it means to be Jewish has been transformed by Jesus.

The key is that the role and concept of law is different for Jewish people than for Christians.

As for some other understandings of Christianity as to what Jesus really means to the human race I would be happy to share more about that. This can help others to understand why Christians believe as they do. I can see that Christianity can be misunderstood by others. In fact we Christians always seek to further our understanding. However, some key teachings can really help others to understand and at least see why Christians believe and what they believe.

Thank You Cabaret,
Greg

 

[retina_md]

I’d recommend that all who are interested in this subject read “Salvation is from the Jews” written by a Hebrew Catholic named by Roy H. Schoeman. A great read!

 

[cabaret]

Greg_McPherran:

. . .As for some other understandings of Christianity as to what Jesus really means to the human race I would be happy to share more about that. This can help others to understand why Christians believe as they do. I can see that Christianity can be misunderstood by others. In fact we Christians always seek to further our understanding. However, some key teachings can really help others to understand and at least see why Christians believe and what they believe.

Well, I’m prepared to be told what Jesus means to you, of course, though you must be prepared to accept that, from my point of view, it’s of respectful interest but no more.

I’m afraid it will have to wait a week or so, however, we’re moving into our most heavily reflective time of the year (Rosh Hashanah - Yom Kippur) and I’m unlikely to be around much.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Cabaret,

cabaret:

I’m afraid it will have to wait a week or so, however, we’re moving into our most heavily reflective time of the year (Rosh Hashanah - Yom Kippur) and I’m unlikely to be around much.

I am always happy to converse with you and I wish you wonderful holidays.

Greg

 

[Ghosty]

Cabaret: I realize you’re observing the holidays, but I’ll respond briefly none-the-less before I fly off on vacation. I don’t claim that the Church represents the exact practices of the Temple Jews of the ancient days. How could it, since that was from pre-Messianic times? The point is that the Temple is still upheld, albeit in its new light and place. The Jews who started Christianity did not abandon the Temple at all, but rather believed that the practice had grown with Messianic significance. The holiness of the Temple has never been abandoned by Catholics, and every Church is designed around that model, to say nothing of our practices such as the Mass.

I don’t buy in to “Messianic Judaism” in the way that so many evangelicals push it, and I don’t believe that the Church today reflects the precise practices of some branch of Judaism prior to the time of Christ. Rather I believe that the Messiah ushered in a new era of Judaism that grew out of the old, and that this Judaism persists today as the Church. Obviously you wouldn’t agree with this since you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, but my point now is to clarify my position, not to convince you of its truth.