Jews – Do You Believe Jesus Rose From The Dead?

[Jaysuitical]

In Judaism, no man can be God’s equal, or co-eternal with God, to break commandments or issue new commandments on his own authority, or claim that his own authority, separate from that of any other teacher, assembly of teachers, or lineage of teachers, somehow trumps, or renders nugatory, all the rest.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

In Judaism, no man can be God’s equal, or co-eternal with God, to break commandments or issue new commandments on his own authority, or claim that his own authority, separate from that of any other teacher, assembly of teachers, or lineage of teachers, somehow trumps, or renders nugatory, all the rest.

While you are essentially correct, I just want to impress on readers that they should avoid coming to the conclusion that your points are explicit about what Judaism teaches.

The complexity of Jewish tradition and interpretation does not always allow for definitive or dogmatic doctrines such as are found in Christianity. This is in part due to the fact that Judaism in not so much a religion where adherents are identified by beliefs as it is a religion where people are identified as adherents due to their actions or works.

And it is not so much that there are any teachings that humans cannot be equal to God as that Judaism does not see how God can become Incarnate and born in time without diminishing God’s infinite divinity.

But I do want to point out that those Jews who still expect a personal messiah DO believe that a very human messiah will have teaching authority far above any other person or group. Even the New Testament places this ancient expectation in a passing detail out of the mouth of the Samaritan woman at the well as recorded at John 4:25.

 

[Kaninchen]

While there’s an awful lot of ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on quite another hand’ in trying to describe the Jewish position on lots of things, we can be pretty clear on some aspects - dying - trips to the underworld - turning up again gods were de rigueur in many Middle Eastern religions but not in Judaism.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

While there’s an awful lot of ‘on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on quite another hand’ in trying to describe the Jewish position on lots of things, we can be pretty clear on some aspects - dying - trips to the underworld - turning up again gods were de rigueur in many Middle Eastern religions but not in Judaism.

This is not totally correct. Though not considered part of the Tanakh, the Book of Enoch (from the Book of Watchers) is one of the best known pieces of Jewish literature. The book tells of the patriarch Enoch who according to Jewish tradition toured the underworld where both fallen angels and the souls of the dead were imprisoned. This book was greatly influential during the Second Temple period. It dates from around 300 B.C.E.

Portions of this tradition and book are cited and quoted by the Jewish Christian apostle Jude in the Letter of Jude 1:14-15.

 

[Kaninchen]

This is not totally correct. Though not considered part of the Tanakh, the Book of Enoch (from the Book of Watchers) is one of the best known pieces of Jewish literature. The book tells of the patriarch Enoch who according to Jewish tradition toured the underworld where both fallen angels and the souls of the dead were imprisoned. This book was greatly influential during the Second Temple period. It dates from around 300 B.C.E.

Portions of this tradition and book are cited and quoted by the Jewish Christian apostle Jude in the Letter of Jude 1:14-15.

Now, let’s see -

I wrote:

dying - trips to the underworld - turning up again gods were de rigueur in many Middle Eastern religions but not in Judaism

You wrote:

This is not totally correct. . . . . The book tells of the patriarch Enoch who

Am I to take it that it’s your contention that the ‘patriarch Enoch’ was regarded as being a god?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Now, let’s see -

I wrote:

dying - trips to the underworld - turning up again gods were de rigueur in many Middle Eastern religions but not in Judaism

You wrote:

This is not totally correct. . . . . The book tells of the patriarch Enoch who

Am I to take it that it’s your contention that the ‘patriarch Enoch’ was regarded as being a god?

No.

What I meant is that there is Jewish teaching that includes “trips to the underworld,” such as the one I mentioned. That’s what I meant by not being “totally” correct.

So I was not saying you were totally incorrect, just adding that particular point.

As to the resurrection comment you made, Catholic teaching is that Jesus’ rising from the dead was a validation of his humanity, not that his “trip to the underworld” and return led to his being hailed as God. As Catholics believe, Jesus was God Incarnate at this birth, so he did not ‘die and turn up as a god after his trip to the underworld’ as you put it. Instead in Jesus, God has chosen to experience everything we as humans have to undergo, except for sin, and being resurrected is seen by Christians as the destiny of humanity.

But I say this with the deepest respect for you and your views.

Both Judaism and Christian theology teach hope in the resurrection. In fact belief in the resurrection of the dead is one of Rambam’s 13 Principles of Faith. It is associated with the coming of the Messiah and Olam Ha-Ba, the “world to come.” Catholics teach likewise.

Jesus divinity is not solely proved by his being resurrected from the dead, for he was the “firstfruits” of the “resurrection of the body” of Olam Ha-Ba.–1 Corinthians 15:23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 998ff.

Olam Ha-Ba is mentioned as the expected era of the resurrection of all the dead at Hebrews 2:5: “It was not to angels that he [God] subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking [when preaching the gospel].” (Italics added.) Belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead to a renewed creation is part of the eschatology of Catholicism, seeing Jesus’ bodily resurrection as a preview of what we can expect for ourselves.

But again I do not want you to take my comments as if I expect you to agree with my views or mistakenly conclude that I am attacking yours. Though a Catholic, I am a Jew. Since the concept of a messiah is a Jewish one, I believe that whatever a Jew believes about this concept is a personal decision for each Jew. Some Jews have believed in another as the messiah instead of Jesus of Nazareth, others no longer believe the messiah as an individual per se.

Regardless, one does not stop being a Jew when one does something as Jewish as believing in the Messiah–whoever you think the Messiah may or may not be. On the contrary, one fulfills the Jewish hope in the Messiah. While as a Christian I may not accept or agree with some of the details you hold to, I totally respect you and your choices. God is with you, God works through you, and you are blessed in God as a fellow Jew. Peace upon you and all Israel.

 

[Kaninchen]

No.

What I meant is that there is Jewish teaching that includes “trips to the underworld,” such as the one I mentioned. That’s what I meant by not being “totally” correct.

If I had said that there was no Jewish source mentioning visits to the underworld, you’d have been right. I didn’t, I was being quite specific.

As to the resurrection comment you made, Catholic teaching is that Jesus’ rising from the dead was a validation of his humanity, not that his “trip to the underworld” and return led to his being hailed as God. As Catholics believe, Jesus was God Incarnate at this birth, so he did not ‘die and turn up as a god after his trip to the underworld’ as you put it. Instead in Jesus, God has chosen to experience everything we as humans have to undergo, except for sin, and being resurrected is seen by Christians as the destiny of humanity.

After several years here, I’ve sort of picked up the story, even if I ‘don’t believe a word of it’ and suspect that the real origin of the idea lies elsewhere.

Regardless, one does not stop being a Jew when one does something as Jewish as believing in the Messiah–whoever you think the Messiah may or may not be. On the contrary, one fulfills the Jewish hope in the Messiah. While as a Christian I may not accept or agree with some of the details you hold to, I totally respect you and your choices. God is with you, God works through you, and you are blessed in God as a fellow Jew. Peace upon you and all Israel.

The best thing a Christian can be is a good Christian, the question of the position of people of Jewish origin who are Christian is one of those issues that may be very interesting to a few but is one of those ‘irresistible force/immovable object’ topics usually best avoided here on CAF.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

If I had said that there was no Jewish source mentioning visits to the underworld, you’d have been right. I didn’t, I was being quite specific.

After several years here, I’ve sort of picked up the story, even if I ‘don’t believe a word of it’ and suspect that the real origin of the idea lies elsewhere.

The best thing a Christian can be is a good Christian, the question of the position of people of Jewish origin who are Christian is one of those issues that may be very interesting to a few but is one of those ‘irresistible force/immovable object’ topics usually best avoided here on CAF.

I can’t be any less of Jewish ancestry that an Irish Catholic can be less Irish because they are Catholic. I don’t feel any need to follow the Mosaic Law or any Jewish customs because I believe that in the Church I have all I need.

But if you think I neither belong in the Church and or I should ignore the fact of ethnicity and avoid speaking of it if I am to continue here on CAF, then I will take that as not being welcome.

You, on the other hand, are always welcome as a friend, a human being, a Jew, or anything else you wish to be before me, in my home and family, and in my Church.

God bless all.

 

[504Katrin]

Actually I’m supposed to do my Hebrew homework now but this is too compelling There’re a couple of concepts here that simply are incomprehensible to me. We both seem to be on the same page, I also respect other fews and don’t want to change yours, or give you room to change mine or anything, but would simply like to engage you in conversation further IF you like. You say that:

As to the resurrection comment you made, Catholic teaching is that Jesus’ rising from the dead was a validation of his humanity, not that his “trip to the underworld” and return led to his being hailed as God.

As far as I remember, the fact that the grave was found empty promted people to believe that he was Gd in the first place. In their eyes, how could anyone human have risen from the dead?! There’s a Christian prayer that says: “…and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven” So here, it says that he made the trip to the underworld and back to heaven from there. In the meantime he met with his disciples so that everyone believed he was Gd. Which raises another question. When he met with his disciples, fully flesh, with wounds in his hands, was he Gd or was he human?

Anther thing that I would like to discuss further is this.

Jesus was God Incarnate at this birth

We all know that Gd created/creates man. The bible starts with that. We, as humans, re-create, but cannot create anything as we ourselves are creations of Gd. So how do you explain that Jesus was born at all? How could Gd possibly be born?

for he was the “firstfruits” of the “resurrection of the body” of Olam Ha-Ba

If you like I would ask you to back up this statement. Where does the Torah state that the resurrection of the dead happens slice wise? Where is it been tought that first someone resurrects, and after him all the others will resurrect after an unknown period of time? Don’t you think that such a significant detail would have been stated at least once in the Torah?

Belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead to a renewed creation is part of the eschatology of Catholicism, seeing Jesus’ bodily resurrection as a preview of what we can expect for ourselves

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but during my time in the church I learned that Christians don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead (which goes with rebuilding the Temple) but that they do believe that their spirits go to the father (to Jesus) to where he is, and after the end of time the dead bodies will also go up *to heaven * where the father is. They do not believe in the resurrection of the dead and a life on earth studying the Torah. They believe that “heaven” will be in the spiritual world, not in this physical world.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but during my time in the church I learned that Christians don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead (which goes with rebuilding the Temple) but that they do believe that their spirits go to the father (to Jesus) to where he is, and after the end of time the dead bodies will also go up *to heaven * where the father is. They do not believe in the resurrection of the dead and a life on earth studying the Torah. They believe that “heaven” will be in the spiritual world, not in this physical world.

I will answer your questions out of respect–beginning with the last first, but I do want you to know that I feel quite alarmed by the statements posted by Kaninchen. I did not know that mentioning I was of Jewish ancestry would be unwelcome at CAF.

Now, you might have never studied the basics of Catholicism which is why you are unaware that Catholics do indeed believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead.

For example, each Sunday Catholics recite either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. At the end of the Nicene Creed we say: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.” And the Apostles’ Creed ends with: “I believe in…the* resurrection of the body*, and life everlasting. Amen.”

The Greek word translated “resurrection” (anastasis) means “to stand up bodily.” The word anastasis cannot be used in reference to life of the soul after death (not correctly anyway) because it refers only to the restoration of life to a dead human body. Souls, which Christians hold to be immortal, do not require resurrection because they are not corporeal (physical) and never need to be brought back to life since they are eternal in themselves.

It is because of the belief in “anastasis” or the “bodily resurrection” that the Greeks sneered at Paul when he mentioned Jesus’ resurrection. The Greeks believed that since the soul survived death into the next world, the physical body was thus unnecessary ever after. So some thought Paul’s belief of restoring life to the physically dead was foolish.–Acts 17:32.

As to eternal life in the world to come, Catholics have always believed in a “new heavens and new earth” in which the physical universe would be renewed. Eternal life will not be limited to a “place” called heaven since it isn’t a place, per se, but the experience of being with God. Therefore Catholics believe in “the life of the world to come” just as the Jews do. For more details please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1042.

We might want to make another thread about further answers and details since it can take this entire subject off its mark and go in a direction originally unintended.

But more importantly you may want to stop at this point and realize that you have had a very incorrect view of the above matters on what Catholics believe. You might want to ask yourself where you got them from (obviously not from the Church). You also might want to look at your other questions in the light of this “new” information to you.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I was limited on time on the previous post. So I include the rest of my answer–even though I believe we are getting off the subject.

Questions from 504Katrin are in bold, my answers are in standard type.

Jesus 'made the trip to the underworld and back to heaven from there. In the meantime he met with his disciples so that everyone believed he was Gd.'

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus went to the underworld and then to heaven, meeting with his disciples to prove he was God. Wherever you got this understanding, it did not come from Catholicism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that “Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.” (CCC 637) Jesus did not go “back to heaven from there” as you mention. Jesus himself told Mary Magdalene shortly after he rose from the grave: “I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) You therefore are asking your questions based on faulty information about what the Church teaches.

The Church also does not teach that Jesus rose from the dead to prove he was God. Again the CCC teaches:

Faith in the Resurrection has as its object an event which as historically attested to by the disciples, who really encountered the Risen One. At the same time, this event is mysteriously transcendent insofar as it is the entry of Christ’s humanity into the glory of God.

The empty tomb and the linen cloths lying there signify in themselves that by God’s power Christ’s body had escaped the bonds of death and corruption. They prepared the disciples to encounter the Risen Lord.

Christ, “the first-born from the dead” (Col 1:18), is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls (cf. Rom 6:4), and one day by the new life he will impart to our bodies (cf.: Rom 8:11).–CCC 656-658.

Which raises another question. When he met with his disciples, fully flesh, with wounds in his hands, was he Gd or was he human?

The Catholic Church teaches he was both, fully human and fully God.

Where does the Torah state that the resurrection of the dead happens slice wise? Where is it been tought that first someone resurrects, and after him all the others will resurrect after an unknown period of time? Don’t you think that such a significant detail would have been stated at least once in the Torah?

This is from the New Testament, not Torah. The New Testament text reads:

Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep…in Christ shall all be brought to life,but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ.–1 Corinthians 15:20-23.

If you want to know more, let’s start another thread or something since this thread is supposed to cover Jews and their views on the resurrection, not “Let’s Challenge Catholicism on the Subject.”

I would like to ask this: Where did you get your information about our beliefs? It doesn’t match anything we believe or teach. How long have you held to such incorrect data about us?

 

[Kaninchen]

I can’t be any less of Jewish ancestry that an Irish Catholic can be less Irish because they are Catholic. I don’t feel any need to follow the Mosaic Law or any Jewish customs because I believe that in the Church I have all I need.

I was, actually, born in Italy but I grew up in England. I’m not an Italian, I’m an Englishwoman with a great love of many things Italian and something of a tendency to bore people on the general wonders and bonkers nature of Italy. What I don’t do is go to Italy and lecture Italians on how Italian I am.

So, some of your ancestors were Jewish - given that I’m blonde and blue-eyed and my ancestors lived in Bavaria and Northern Italy, it’s a fair bet (no pun intended) that I’ve got the odd non-Jew in my background. In both cases, so what?

But if you think I neither belong in the Church and or I should ignore the fact of ethnicity and avoid speaking of it if I am to continue here on CAF, then I will take that as not being welcome.

You’re a Christian, you’re right where you belong. Now, obviously, it’s a Christian board, you are free to talk to your heart’s content about how Jewish you are as well as being Christian and, I’m sure that, as when others have done so in the past here on CAF, there will be a number of Christians who will agree with you.

Where things become a little brittle is when Jewish posters are asked to accept the concept of ‘Jewish Christians’ or ‘Christian Jews’ because, of course, we don’t. That was what I was trying to get over to you in my earlier response - the ‘irresistible force/immovable object’ scenario.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I was, actually, born in Italy but I grew up in England. I’m not an Italian, I’m an Englishwoman with a great love of many things Italian and something of a tendency to bore people on the general wonders and bonkers nature of Italy. What I don’t do is go to Italy and lecture Italians on how Italian I am.

So, some of your ancestors were Jewish - given that I’m blonde and blue-eyed and my ancestors lived in Bavaria and Northern Italy, it’s a fair bet (no pun intended) that I’ve got the odd non-Jew in my background. In both cases, so what?

You’re a Christian, you’re right where you belong. Now, obviously, it’s a Christian board, you are free to talk to your heart’s content about how Jewish you are as well as being Christian and, I’m sure that, as when others have done so in the past here on CAF, there will be a number of Christians who will agree with you.

Where things become a little brittle is when Jewish posters are asked to accept the concept of ‘Jewish Christians’ or ‘Christian Jews’ because, of course, we don’t. That was what I was trying to get over to you in my earlier response - the ‘irresistible force/immovable object’ scenario.

It’s a little different with me.

After over 15 years of research with help from a rabbi, the Catholic Church, and professional researchers a rich heritage that leads back to the first Christians–who by the way were Jews–has been uncovered.

There are documents from the Spanish Inquisition with names of my ancestors, some of whom were tortured, others who died, all at the hands of people’s whose religion we have had claim to since the first century.

Our family qualifies for the “law of return” to both Portugal and Spain (which could open doors to Israel, as well). Members of my family fled into Mexico only to flee again for being Jewish–even though we were Catholics religiously. We have kept many Jewish customs in the face of persecution over 2000 years despite the hatred of fellow Catholics and Jews who wanted us to stop, even at the cost of our blood.

I am related to those who suffered in the Shoah, too.

I am of the tribe of Judah, have ancestors who also lived in Italy during the time of St. Peter, and it is quite likely that I have members of my Jewish family that, Christian or not, lived in Alexandria, Egypt centuries ago.

My father’s side of the family appears to have a claim to the earliest Christians, all of whom were also Jews who observed Torah as did the other first-century Jewish Christians. They survived the Temple’s fall into the hands of the Romans. And while it is not clear if any of them saw Christ, that is a possibility.

Who are you to claim that I am not Jew or that being a Catholic means I must stop claiming to be a Jew? If my Church no longer has qualms about it, what do yours matter?

Regardless of what you believe and feel, I believe that a Jew does not stop being a Jew at the arrival of the Messiah–whoever that Messiah may be, Jesus or not. If someone else came tomorrow who claimed to be the Messiah and you believed them, would your Jewishness suddenly fade away? Would you lose your claim to your heritage because you believe in a Messiah?

If you answer “no,” then neither does my rightful claim to my Jewish lineage disappear.

If you answer “yes,” then that means that your Jewishness means nothing since you believe that the Messiah means the end of being a Jew, whoever that Messiah may be and whenever that Messiah comes.

Catholics do not believe I become less Jewish by accepting the Messiah.

I would appreciate that you leave any intolerance about my claim to my heritage to yourself.

And that is the end of my commenting on this thread unless people stay on the subject. It is illogical to keep straying and shows an inability to follow the instruction of those who supply this forum for us.

 

[Kaninchen]

Who are you to claim that I am not Jew or that being a Catholic means I must stop claiming to be a Jew? If my Church no longer has qualms about it, what do yours matter?

It’s whether you’re halakhically Jewish that matters to me and, halakhically, Christians (whatever their heritage) are not Jews. What the Church thinks is of no significance whatsoever.

Regardless of what you believe and feel, I believe that a Jew does not stop being a Jew at the arrival of the Messiah–whoever that Messiah may be, Jesus or not. If someone else came tomorrow who claimed to be the Messiah and you believed them, would your Jewishness suddenly fade away? Would you lose your claim to your heritage because you believe in a Messiah?

This is all totally irrelevant, it’s whether you are halakhically Jewish that matters.

I would appreciate that you leave any intolerance about my claim to my heritage to yourself.

As long as you don’t expect me to accept your definitions, I have not the slightest interest.

And that is the end of my commenting on this thread unless people stay on the subject. It is illogical to keep straying and shows an inability to follow the instruction of those who supply this forum for us.

Well, if you’d listened to me when I first said that it’s a touchy subject . . . . you wouldn’t have had to get yourself upset.

 

[Jaysuitical]

While you are essentially correct, I just want to impress on readers that they should avoid coming to the conclusion that your points are explicit about what Judaism teaches.

The complexity of Jewish tradition and interpretation does not always allow for definitive or dogmatic doctrines such as are found in Christianity. This is in part due to the fact that Judaism in not so much a religion where adherents are identified by beliefs as it is a religion where people are identified as adherents due to their actions or works.

And it is not so much that there are any teachings that humans cannot be equal to God as that Judaism does not see how God can become Incarnate and born in time without diminishing God’s infinite divinity.

But I do want to point out that those Jews who still expect a personal messiah DO believe that a very human messiah will have teaching authority far above any other person or group. Even the New Testament places this ancient expectation in a passing detail out of the mouth of the Samaritan woman at the well as recorded at John 4:25.

 The complexity of tradition and interpretation doesn't mean that there aren't certain actions and beliefs that exclude someone from the covenant. 

 Do you mean to say that contemporary Messianic expectations would include a Messiah who would say, for example, that "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him"? Isn't it instead that the Messiah would re-institute all the mitzvot that have been suspended in the period following the destruction of the Second Temple? 

 Would the vast majority of early Jewish Christians have become Christian if all the implications had been drawn out for the observance of the commandments? The conflict with the Judaizers would suggest otherwise; and it would seem that they were excluded from the Church after the early decades if they sought to continue strict observance.

 

[504Katrin]

I will answer your questions out of respect–beginning with the last first, but I do want you to know that I feel quite alarmed by the statements posted by Kaninchen. I did not know that mentioning I was of Jewish ancestry would be unwelcome at CAF.

Now, you might have never studied the basics of Catholicism which is why you are unaware that Catholics do indeed believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead.

For example, each Sunday Catholics recite either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. At the end of the Nicene Creed we say: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.” And the Apostles’ Creed ends with: “I believe in…the* resurrection of the body*, and life everlasting. Amen.”

The Greek word translated “resurrection” (anastasis) means “to stand up bodily.” The word anastasis cannot be used in reference to life of the soul after death (not correctly anyway) because it refers only to the restoration of life to a dead human body. Souls, which Christians hold to be immortal, do not require resurrection because they are not corporeal (physical) and never need to be brought back to life since they are eternal in themselves.

It is because of the belief in “anastasis” or the “bodily resurrection” that the Greeks sneered at Paul when he mentioned Jesus’ resurrection. The Greeks believed that since the soul survived death into the next world, the physical body was thus unnecessary ever after. So some thought Paul’s belief of restoring life to the physically dead was foolish.–Acts 17:32.

As to eternal life in the world to come, Catholics have always believed in a “new heavens and new earth” in which the physical universe would be renewed. Eternal life will not be limited to a “place” called heaven since it isn’t a place, per se, but the experience of being with God. Therefore Catholics believe in “the life of the world to come” just as the Jews do. For more details please see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1042.

We might want to make another thread about further answers and details since it can take this entire subject off its mark and go in a direction originally unintended.

But more importantly you may want to stop at this point and realize that you have had a very incorrect view of the above matters on what Catholics believe. You might want to ask yourself where you got them from (obviously not from the Church). You also might want to look at your other questions in the light of this “new” information to you.

Thank you for your response. I learned the basics of Catholicism, and one day asked a Pastor to explain to me in detail what was going to happen, and he said that the “glorified” bodies go all up to heaven. This is how things got explained to me. First, when individuals die, their souls go to heaven. At the end of time, all of the dead will have glorified bodies and then all go to heaven with their bodies. So I asked how bodies were supposed to go to heaven, and he didn’t have an explanation, but said similar to how Jesus went up to heaven. I think I have read this on CAF also before, that the glorified bodies will go up to heaven.

In the link you kindly provided, it says that:

" 1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men"

So this ^ means that the Temple will be rebuilt.

 

[504Katrin]

I was limited on time on the previous post. So I include the rest of my answer–even though I believe we are getting off the subject.

Questions from 504Katrin are in bold, my answers are in standard type.

Jesus 'made the trip to the underworld and back to heaven from there. In the meantime he met with his disciples so that everyone believed he was Gd.'

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus went to the underworld and then to heaven, meeting with his disciples to prove he was God. Wherever you got this understanding, it did not come from Catholicism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that “Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.” (CCC 637) Jesus did not go “back to heaven from there” as you mention. Jesus himself told Mary Magdalene shortly after he rose from the grave: “I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) You therefore are asking your questions based on faulty information about what the Church teaches.

The Church also does not teach that Jesus rose from the dead to prove he was God. Again the CCC teaches:

Faith in the Resurrection has as its object an event which as historically attested to by the disciples, who really encountered the Risen One. At the same time, this event is mysteriously transcendent insofar as it is the entry of Christ’s humanity into the glory of God.

The empty tomb and the linen cloths lying there signify in themselves that by God’s power Christ’s body had escaped the bonds of death and corruption. They prepared the disciples to encounter the Risen Lord.

Christ, “the first-born from the dead” (Col 1:18), is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls (cf. Rom 6:4), and one day by the new life he will impart to our bodies (cf.: Rom 8:11).–CCC 656-658.

Which raises another question. When he met with his disciples, fully flesh, with wounds in his hands, was he Gd or was he human?

The Catholic Church teaches he was both, fully human and fully God.

Where does the Torah state that the resurrection of the dead happens slice wise? Where is it been tought that first someone resurrects, and after him all the others will resurrect after an unknown period of time? Don’t you think that such a significant detail would have been stated at least once in the Torah?

This is from the New Testament, not Torah. The New Testament text reads:

Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep…in Christ shall all be brought to life,but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ.–1 Corinthians 15:20-23.

If you want to know more, let’s start another thread or something since this thread is supposed to cover Jews and their views on the resurrection, not “Let’s Challenge Catholicism on the Subject.”

I would like to ask this: Where did you get your information about our beliefs? It doesn’t match anything we believe or teach. How long have you held to such incorrect data about us?

I think we’re okay The topic asks Jews if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead which is what we’re talking about

What about this prayer: “…and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven…” I’m haveing trouble understanding this. This prayer says that Jesus made the trip to the underworld, and after three days he ascended to heaven. In the meantime he met with his disciples is what the gospel says. And after that he went up to the heavens again.

I know it’s not in the Torah, so I was just saying, if such a significant thing were to happen why then didn’t anyone of the prophets at least say anything about it.

The church teaches that Jesus was fully Gd after his resurrection from the dead. The Torah though says, and some couple hundreds of thousands of people were there at Mount Sinai, that not even Moses could see Gd fully. The peeps even told Moses to go talk to him as they couldn’t bear to hear his voice for long. How do you explain Gd being fully Gd and human?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

It’s whether you’re halakhically Jewish that matters to me and, halakhically, Christians (whatever their heritage) are not Jews. What the Church thinks is of no significance whatsoever.

This is all totally irrelevant, it’s whether you are halakhically Jewish that matters.

As long as you don’t expect me to accept your definitions, I have not the slightest interest.

Well, if you’d listened to me when I first said that it’s a touchy subject . . . . you wouldn’t have had to get yourself upset.

I’ve asked you nicely to please stop making comments about how “totally irrelevant” you think my connection to my heritage is. It is has been a very painful experience reading your words and has caused me more anguish than you realize. I also find it offensive that you think my personal convictions as a Catholic are “of no significance whatsoever.”

I am currently taking issue with the moderators about this personal attack. I also expect a satisfactory apology from you for your remarks.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the thread please.

 

[Della]

I think we’re okay The topic asks Jews if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead which is what we’re talking about

What about this prayer: “…and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven…” I’m haveing trouble understanding this. This prayer says that Jesus made the trip to the underworld, and after three days he ascended to heaven. In the meantime he met with his disciples is what the gospel says. And after that he went up to the heavens again.

I know it’s not in the Torah, so I was just saying, if such a significant thing were to happen why then didn’t anyone of the prophets at least say anything about it.

There are OT references that foreshadowed/prophesied these events. I suspect you are unfamiliar with them as such since you would not have read them in that context. The writers of the NT cited such passages as a witness to the reliability of Jesus’ claims and mission. It’s a study all it’s own, which we cannot do justice to here. If you research it on Catholic Answers I’m sure you will find articles that will help you.

The church teaches that Jesus was fully Gd after his resurrection from the dead. The Torah though says, and some couple hundreds of thousands of people were there at Mount Sinai, that not even Moses could see Gd fully. The peeps even told Moses to go talk to him as they couldn’t bear to hear his voice for long. How do you explain Gd being fully Gd and human?

The belief is that God became man by taking on human flesh from the Virgin Mary. Thus he was both fully God and fully man. In doing so the Son of God put aside his privileges as God in order to let us see him, hear him, and so he could redeem us. So, why should anyone have seen anything other than a human being in Jesus? However, we also know that he could and did appear in his glorified form, showing the glory he had with the Father before he became man. When Christ came to us in the Incarnation he took on human form while remaining God.