Jewish Book: How to Read the Bible

[irishpatrick]

Pharoah’s heart was already hardened. He had a lifetime to do the right thing and let the Jews go. And if you go back and read exodus, you’ll see that God does not harden his heart until the fourth or fifth plague. So Pharoah didn’t need help in doing the wrong thing.

All that being said, your “logic” that Jews do not accept Jesus because God has hardened their hearts is interesting.

I think God allowed the hardening in order to open salvation to the Gentiles. One day in the future that door will be closed to the Gentiles and the Jews will have converted to Jesus. Shortly after that Jesus returns and this era of the Church and salvation history comes to a close.

 

[irishpatrick]

I was obviously not clear - it’s a paradigmatic thing. Christians start with Jesus, their ‘Messiah’ and Jesus is central to everything, everything is viewed through the lens of Jesus. We don’t start with Messiah, we start with Torah, The Law, and Messiah isn’t central to everything - when Messiah turns up it’ll be to make Torah even more central. In a sense we don’t view Torah through the lens of Messiah, we view Messiah through the lens of Torah.

Well, you are both correct and incorrect. The vast majority of converts in the early Church were Jews. They did not start with Jesus, they simply saw Jesus as the promised Messiah and realized that Jesus brought the ultimate fullfilment to the Law and to Judaism. If they had not felt that way, they would not have had any reason to convert.

 

[Kaninchen]

Thanks. You are correct about the Christian view.

Who is the Messiah in Isaiah? What is he pointing to? Weren’t Jews expecting a king (albeit not necessarily a divine one)?

The reason I asked was because what Christians may see as ‘Messiah-prophetic’ and what we may see as ‘Messiah-prophetic’ are not necessarily the same thing.

If you start with Jesus and read Jesus into the Tanakh you have a different ‘lens’.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, you are both correct and incorrect. The vast majority of converts in the early Church were Jews. They did not start with Jesus, they simply saw Jesus as the promised Messiah and realized that Jesus brought the ultimate fullfilment to the Law and to Judaism. If they had not felt that way, they would not have had any reason to convert.

The evidence for all this comes from?

Yes, a book we don’t accept. (back to “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t” argument)

 

[irishpatrick]

The evidence for all this comes from?

Yes, a book we don’t accept. (back to “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t” argument)

Not quite. You do accept the OT. Jesus did in fact fullfill what the OT claims of the Messiah. There are hundreds of OT passages fullfulled by Jesus. Beyond that, thousands of Jewish converts during the first century cannot be ignored.

It is critical to recall that there was no New Testament Scriptures in the early Church, at least not canonized or formalized. The converts at that time spread the Gospel by word of mouth and quite often when they spoke of the “Scriptures,” it was OT Scriptures they were speaking of, not the NT which had not yet been completely written or compiled.

That means that the Jews of those days converted based upon the strength of the facts about Jesus when compared to what the OT predicted of the Messiah.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Most (not all) conversations between Christians and Jews (regarding matters of faith) will not end-up being particularly productive. Most Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and they reject the NT as a Divinely given source. Our only true common ground is that we both are waiting for the Messiah: the Jews wait for Him in what they believe will be His first and definitive appearance, while Christians wait for the Messiah’s return in glory in which salvation history will come to an end. We both wait for the Messiah, just with radically different views regarding the Messiah’s appearance.

But there is only one Messiah and that is Jesus. Do you think that when Jesus returns the Jewish people will accept Him as the Messiah? How can they if they rejected Him once? Do you think they will accept Him as the Messiah who came to us in biblical times? Admit they were wrong?

Christians should always hold Jewish people in great regard in matters of faith simply because God’s Revelation of Himself was first given to His Chosen People (the Jews). Christians should, in no small way, be grateful for the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, because it was that rejection that opened the door for the Gentiles to enter into the amazing offer of salvation through the one and only Savior–Jesus the Christ.

I agree that we should always hold Jewish people in great regard, as they are God’s Chosen People. But I’m confused about your statement that it was by Jews rejecting Jesus that we (as Gentiles) were offered salvation. Didn’t Jesus die for everyone? I thought it was through His death and resurrection that we were offered salvation - not rejection by the Jewish people.

We can enjoy conversations about various matters, yet in the end there exists a non-bridgeable gap between us regarding the Messiah and until the day comes when Jews convert, that gap will continue. In Heaven everyone knows and will know that Jesus is the Messiah–the savior of all who are saved no matter where they came from.

This kind of answers my question from the first part of your post. So you’re saying the Jewish people will accept Jesus as the Messiah when He returns. I just want to be sure I understand your position fully.

 

[Crumpy]

I watch a lot of historical programing on the History and Discovery Channels - which unfortuneately many people view as being both scientific & religiously correct. The two networks often reuse the same “experts” over and over again in their programing without explanation of their theological “bent” and they then present their opinion as historical fact, they often use scholars who are members of the Jesus Seminar:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The other day, one of the channels had a program on about King Herod the Great. They presented the same two Jewish scholars who must be on retainer to the network.

The older Jewish scholar - grey hair & white beard & very scholarly looking - said he felt the “story” about King Herod killing the innocents was pure fable - made up to enhance how much Jews despised him. Apparently to him, ancient Jews were chuck-full of fanciful “stories” based in quasi-realism.

I have to wonder if he undercuts Judaism as a way to discredit Christianity. (Those ancient Jews were always “making up” stories about people) and therefore a select few “made up” a figure they called Son of God and printed his life into a fanciful book called the New Testament.

I’ve watched this stuff in the past, with great interest. The historical critical perspective is to seek and independent source for any claim in the Bible, as a general rule. And, by the same rule, to reject anything that doesn’t pass that test.

Catholics would know that priests, in general, don’t offer much analysis of the Old Testament, even though the NT attests to the inspiration and authority of the OT.

I have to go to Jewish commentaries to see any discussion at all of problems, such as conflicts between verses of the OT (Hebrew Scripture). I haven’t found a Catholic commentary yet that would even think of discussing the conflicting commands that the pascal lamb should be in once place, boiled, and in another place, roasted. Beyond the superficial problem with the relevance of this conflict, lie the deeper issues of different sources for the Torah and the role of redaction of the final edition that we have.

The question of such a mundane subject also points to the conjectural problem of why the redactor left such obvious conflicts in the final version.

It should be relevant for the Catholic to look over the shoulder, so to speak, of how the rabbis resolve these conflicts and others involving the interpretation. This is the type of thing that usually draws a dismissive remark that the Jews are superficial and legalistic. In reality, I find it is just the opposite, that the Jews (rabbis) seem very sensitive and concerned about their respect of God And, it bears directly not only on THEIR attitude towards the Torah and other writings, but it should bear directly on how WE Catholics understand those writings, as well.

Can we Catholics and should we Catholics gloss over these problems? I think not. We have the advantage of the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, and it surely spends a lot of time explaining just that.

From our point of view, we Catholics should be the best experts at explaining all this. I wish that were true. I think it may be true only to the extent that we emulate the fervor of Jews towards their sacred texts and even the fervor of the Muslims towards theirs.

We should theoretically be all the more equipped as we have our tradition and the magisterium on our side.

If you read the important document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission (circa 1993) on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, you’d see we have the PBC itself as a high court, although not the court of last resort, in interpreting scripture. As important as that function is, and has been for over 100 years, we Catholics might be challenged to express the published opinions of the PBC. You’d think we ought to have a “Catholic talmud” of sorts to compile all the wisdom of these scholars – you’d think or wish so, as I do.

 

[Vince1022]

Jews will tend to study the OT prophets at a much greater depth.

Why? They are part of the Christian Scripture as well, so why would we presume that Jews study them at a greater depth than Christians?

 

[Kaninchen]

Not quite. You do accept the OT. Jesus did in fact fullfill what the OT claims of the Messiah.

Only if you believe in the NT, that’s the point.

There are hundreds of OT passages fullfulled by Jesus. Beyond that, thousands of Jewish converts during the first century cannot be ignored.

And the source for this is?

It is critical to recall that there was no New Testament Scriptures in the early Church, at least not canonized or formalized. The converts at that time spread the Gospel by word of mouth and quite often when they spoke of the “Scriptures,” it was OT Scriptures they were speaking of, not the NT which had not yet been completely written or compiled.

It is critical to recall that all this is conjecture.

That means that the Jews of those days converted based upon the strength of the facts about Jesus when compared to what the OT predicted of the Messiah.

Upon conjecture.

 

[irishpatrick]

But there is only one Messiah and that is Jesus. Do you think that when Jesus returns the Jewish people will accept Him as the Messiah? How can they if they rejected Him once? Do you think they will accept Him as the Messiah who came to us in biblical times? Admit they were wrong?
**
==> The Bible states that the Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah before Jesus returns. That will be a major sign that our Lord’s return is truly emminent. This is a major reason why we cannot be in the last days because the Jews have not yet converted.
**
I agree that we should always hold Jewish people in great regard, as they are God’s Chosen People. But I’m confused about your statement that it was by Jews rejecting Jesus that we (as Gentiles) were offered salvation. Didn’t Jesus die for everyone? I thought it was through His death and resurrection that we were offered salvation - not rejection by the Jewish people.

==> Of course. Yet, Jesus being God already knew what the Jews would do in large measure. In other words, He knew that most Jews would reject Him. This allowed the door to be open to the Gentiles. Read Romans 11 (there are many others).

This kind of answers my question from the first part of your post. So you’re saying the Jewish people will accept Jesus as the Messiah when He returns. I just want to be sure I understand your position fully.

**==> They will accept Him not long before He returns, and at that time the Gentiles will have ceased entering the Church. **

 

[irishpatrick]

Only if you believe in the NT, that’s the point.

**==> No. The point is they were fulfilled long before the NT was written. **

And the source for this is?

==> Historical fact. Jesus was speaking mainly to the Jews in the beginning. In fact, He came only to the house of Israel and only after the Jews rejection did He open His ministry to the Gentiles. Jesus was raised a Jew by Jews and at first ministered to Jews.

It is critical to recall that all this is conjecture.

**==> Not conjecture at all. It is known when Jesus lived. It is known when converts came into the early Church. It is known when the NT Scriptures were written and then canonized. No guessing at all in any of this. **

Upon conjecture.

==> No. No conjecture. Jews converted, many did in fact. Most early converts were Jews. There was nothing at the time known as “Christianity,” and nothing known as a “New Testament.” Those early Jewish converts learned what Jesus taught and what He fullfilled and that caused them to convert. No conjecture at all.

Now, this is conjecture: I suspect that most of those Jewish converts had no way to know that a new “religion” had just been born. Most very likely felt that were following Judaism in its fullest and most complete expression (which in a very real way is exactly what Christianity is).

 

[irishpatrick]

I’ve watched this stuff in the past, with great interest. The historical critical perspective is to seek and independent source for any claim in the Bible, as a general rule. And, by the same rule, to reject anything that doesn’t pass that test.

Catholics would know that priests, in general, don’t offer much analysis of the Old Testament, even though the NT attests to the inspiration and authority of the OT.

I have to go to Jewish commentaries to see any discussion at all of problems, such as conflicts between verses of the OT (Hebrew Scripture). I haven’t found a Catholic commentary yet that would even think of discussing the conflicting commands that the pascal lamb should be in once place, boiled, and in another place, roasted. Beyond the superficial problem with the relevance of this conflict, lie the deeper issues of different sources for the Torah and the role of redaction of the final edition that we have.

The question of such a mundane subject also points to the conjectural problem of why the redactor left such obvious conflicts in the final version.

It should be relevant for the Catholic to look over the shoulder, so to speak, of how the rabbis resolve these conflicts and others involving the interpretation. This is the type of thing that usually draws a dismissive remark that the Jews are superficial and legalistic. In reality, I find it is just the opposite, that the Jews (rabbis) seem very sensitive and concerned about their respect of God And, it bears directly not only on THEIR attitude towards the Torah and other writings, but it should bear directly on how WE Catholics understand those writings, as well.

Can we Catholics and should we Catholics gloss over these problems? I think not. We have the advantage of the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, and it surely spends a lot of time explaining just that.

From our point of view, we Catholics should be the best experts at explaining all this. I wish that were true. I think it may be true only to the extent that we emulate the fervor of Jews towards their sacred texts and even the fervor of the Muslims towards theirs.

We should theoretically be all the more equipped as we have our tradition and the magisterium on our side.

If you read the important document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission (circa 1993) on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, you’d see we have the PBC itself as a high court, although not the court of last resort, in interpreting scripture. As important as that function is, and has been for over 100 years, we Catholics might be challenged to express the published opinions of the PBC. You’d think we ought to have a “Catholic talmud” of sorts to compile all the wisdom of these scholars – you’d think or wish so, as I do.

I believe you explain it well, yet I also think you underestimate how deeply Catholics clerical scholars study the OT. Many of them, especially in Rome (and some in Spain) know many languages including Hebrew. They dig into both the Hebrew and Aramaic languages in order to more correctly iterpret the OT. They will often lean on OT Jewish scholars and Rabbis in order to help their studies. The problem is the vast majority of Catholics are not prepared to deeply understand both the OT and the NT, it would literally a lifetime and in manys is simply not required. There will always be conflicts because people are doing the studies and people are not perfect.

Yet, the Catholic faith is both a new Covenant as given by Jesus, while also being the fullest expression of Judaism, which of course the Jews cannot yet see–one day they will. Until that day arrives, Catholics and Jews are brethren in faith in many ways…or at least they should be since the Jews were the first to receive God’s Revelation about Himself, and Catholics were the ones to receive the fullness of that Revelation which brought in the Messiah and Redemption for the world.

 

[Kaninchen]

==> No. No conjecture. Jews converted, many did in fact. Most early converts were Jews. There was nothing at the time known as “Christianity,” and nothing known as a “New Testament.” Those early Jewish converts learned what Jesus taught and what He fullfilled and that caused them to convert. No conjecture at all.

Now, this is conjecture: I suspect that most of those Jewish converts had no way to know that a new “religion” had just been born. Most very likely felt that were following Judaism in its fullest and most complete expression (which in a very real way is exactly what Christianity is).

I’m to lazy to do the quotes from the initial part of the post.

Of course it’s all to do with acceptance or not of the NT. When you say something like “No. The point is they were fulfilled long before the NT was written.” the only source for the statement are events and narratives within the NT.

All the rest is conjecture and faith.

 

[Lisel]

==> No. No conjecture. Jews converted, many did in fact. Most early converts were Jews. There was nothing at the time known as “Christianity,” and nothing known as a “New Testament.” Those early Jewish converts learned what Jesus taught and what He fullfilled and that caused them to convert. No conjecture at all.

Now, this is conjecture: I suspect that most of those Jewish converts had no way to know that a new “religion” had just been born. Most very likely felt that were following Judaism in its fullest and most complete expression (which in a very real way is exactly what Christianity is).

how many? How many ever actually heard Jesus speak? Of those,how many converted? A few thousand? Five thousand. Small potatos.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m to lazy to do the quotes from the initial part of the post.

Of course it’s all to do with acceptance or not of the NT. When you say something like “No. The point is they were fulfilled long before the NT was written.” the only source for the statement are events and narratives within the NT.

All the rest is conjecture and faith.

Not true. We have Tertullian, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelium of James, Tacitus, and the Didache to name a few.

And Nero, Diocletian…

 

[Lisel]

I’m responding to an agurment that tries to prove Christianity is right based on the facts that Jews converted in the time of Jesus

 

[Kaninchen]

Not true. We have Tertullian, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelium of James, Tacitus, and the Didache to name a few.

And Nero, Diocletian…

An outsider saying something like “there are these guys who say their leader rose from the dead” is evidence only of there having been some guys who said their leader rose from the dead, not that he actually did so.

The rest is NT Pt II.

I see a “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” very close at hand.

 

[Cat_Herder]

An outsider saying something like “there are these guys who say their leader rose from the dead” is evidence only of there having been some guys who said their leader rose from the dead, not that he actually did so.

The rest is NT Pt II.

I see a “Oh, yes it is!”/“Oh, no it isn’t!” very close at hand.

The trouble is that the outsiders were the pagan Roman Empire. They were both a military superpower and barbaric killers who demolished and salted the fields of any culture which would not bow down to Jupiter and to the emperor. That’s what they did to Carthage–and to Jerusalem.

How on earth could a few thousand “small potatoes” and their descendants take down this empire (which slaughtered them by the thousands) without divine assistance? That is the real question to be answered in light of the five kingdoms listed in Daniel 2.

 

[Kaninchen]

The trouble is that the outsiders were the pagan Roman Empire. They were barbaric killers who demolished and salted the fields of any culture which would not bow down to Jupiter and to the emperor. That’s what they did to Carthage–and to Jerusalem.

How on earth could a few thousand “small potatoes” and their descendants take down this empire (which slaughtered them by the thousands) without divine assistance? That is the real question.

I didn’t say ‘small potatoes’, I merely pointed out that it’s conjecture built on conjecture.

As to slaughter, look at the numbers of Jews slaughtered after our confrontations with them, particularly after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Meanwhile, we’re still here as a ‘People’, where are all the others?

The numbers game and ‘divine assistance’ is something of a cul-de-sac, you could say the same of Islam and others.

 

[tomarin]

The trouble is that the outsiders were the pagan Roman Empire. They were both a military superpower and barbaric killers who demolished and salted the fields of any culture which would not bow down to Jupiter and to the emperor. That’s what they did to Carthage–and to Jerusalem.

Well, they were very civilized barbarians.