A
andremiguel
Guest
Will you wish the Jews to convert to Christianity as the chosen people of God?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
As salvation is only through Christ the answer must be yes.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Yes. Since the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant, even the Jews, God’s chosen people, would benefit from converting to Christianity.
S
steve9191
Guest
In my opinion the better wording of that question is: “Will you wish the Jews to recognize the fulfilment of the covenant God made with Abraham?”
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that the Jews were Saint Paul’s first priority.
D
de_tenebris
Guest
I am a Traditionalist Catholic who lives inside one of the largest Jewish neighborhoods in the United States (University Heights / Beachwood Ohio). Among my neighbors, co-workers, and friends, I count Jews who range from non-practicing liberals to ultra-Orthodox who wear the tefillin and the gartel. Because of where I live, I have tried to listen to all sides of the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish faithful.
Any serious investigation into history should convince us that the Jewish people always were and still remain a crucial part of God’s plan of salvation. The entire rhythm of history points to the special significance of Jerusalem and of the Jewish people. The traces of all the ancient civilizations have mainly washed away from popular knowledge. Even the light of Greek and Roman civilization seems less clear than it was just a hundred years ago when Christians continued to rigorously study Greek and Latin. But Israel stands in triumph. The Psalms of David continue to be sung daily not only by Jews but by we Christians as well. The horrors of the Holocaust and the success of modern Israel point to God’s continuing and supernatural efforts to effectuate His covenant with the Hebrew nation. In my own view, Vatican II was a direct consequence of the Magisterium, through its special charism, responding to these supernatural forces. Europe was chastised after acquiescing to atrocities laid on the Jewish people by Pagans and technocrats like Hitler and Stalin, sadly abetted by many so-called Christians.
Since WWII, Pope John Paul II, Cardinal O’Connor, many serious Catholic statesmen and intellectuals have opened their eyes to the fact that the Jews are brothers. Indeed, in some respects we should regard them as our older brothers. They have a lot to teach us. At a basic level, Christians would do well to acquaint themselves with the Mitzvahs. See Matthew 5:18. We should keep in mind that Jesus first emerged as a rabbi in precisely the same tradition as the Pharisees whom he frequently condemned. He almost certainly wore a head-covering, prayed in Hebrew, eschewed pork and other treif, had the mezuzah parchment on the doorposts of his home, and lit the Chanukah menorah. Of course, through Jesus is also the Messiah. Through his death and resurrection, we have a new Truth and a New Covenant.
I take it as a matter of faith that we Christians are the providential extension of Judaism. The Catholic priesthood is the historical continuity with the ancient order of Melchizedek (or more correctly “Malki Tzedek,” which in Hebrew means “The King who is Righteous”). Jesus Christ is that Righteous King. He is the absolute fulfillment of the ancient Jewish priesthood, which ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem within thirty years of Christ’s death. It is no mere coincidence.
Of course, few Jews will ever accept the incarnation. And serious Jews regard the doctrine as a blasphemy since it violates the first commandment of Mosaic law. Even Jews who want to accept Christians as friends or to regard Jesus as a spiritual teacher are deeply troubled that he describes himself as the only Son of God the Father. For Jews, this is simply idolatry. Furthermore, Jews also point out that certain prophecies have not (yet) been fulfilled.
Be careful of Jewish and apostate “Christian” scholars who disavow the Biblical truth that the Jewish Sanhedrin actively sought Christ’s crucifixion. In a lot of liberal circles where Jewish-Catholic ecumenism is treated academically, it is commonly asserted that Jesus was tried and crucified solely because he violated Roman law. (See, e.g., John Carroll, Constantine’s Sword; Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity). The idea that Jesus died as an anti-Roman crusader has no basis in the writings of the New Testament or the early Church Fathers. To suggest that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate without the prodding of the Jewish hierarchy is total heresy. Indeed, the very meaning of Christ’s death is lost in this conception, since Jesus is the Passover sacrifice. His death under strictly Roman law has no equivalent meaning. Christ is the lamb taken to slaughter by the high priests of the Mosaic law. The Pontius Pilate of John’s Gospel simply can not fathom why the Pharisees are trying to railroad him into sentencing Jesus to death.
At the end of the day, we have an obligation to practice our Faith as it was passed down to us. We must insist as Christians that Jesus died for our sins, and for the sins of all mankind. The Vatican has amended the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews four times in the past one hundred years (in 1955, 1960, 1970, and 2008). As the prayer has become more sensitive to the concerns of Jewish protestors, it has also become, I believe, less orthodox. Clearly, this very touchy subject prods at our faith, our civil commitments, our sense of history and of fairness to Jewish people. Although the Anti-Defamation League will perhaps never understand this, orthodox Catholics pray to convert the Jews because we love them and want them to experience the fullness of God’s salvation in Heaven, but also presently here on earth. Christians have a God-given responsibility to proclaim Christ to all the world. Peter on Pentecost Sunday declared that the whole house of Israel should know for certain that Jesus is Lord and Messiah and that every one of his hearers should be baptized in Jesus’ name. Acts 2:38. When we decide that the conversion of the Jewish peoples is not a worthy subject of our prayer, then we mistake totally the true meaning and worth of the Gospels, which is the promise of salvation by the incarnate God.
Any serious investigation into history should convince us that the Jewish people always were and still remain a crucial part of God’s plan of salvation. The entire rhythm of history points to the special significance of Jerusalem and of the Jewish people. The traces of all the ancient civilizations have mainly washed away from popular knowledge. Even the light of Greek and Roman civilization seems less clear than it was just a hundred years ago when Christians continued to rigorously study Greek and Latin. But Israel stands in triumph. The Psalms of David continue to be sung daily not only by Jews but by we Christians as well. The horrors of the Holocaust and the success of modern Israel point to God’s continuing and supernatural efforts to effectuate His covenant with the Hebrew nation. In my own view, Vatican II was a direct consequence of the Magisterium, through its special charism, responding to these supernatural forces. Europe was chastised after acquiescing to atrocities laid on the Jewish people by Pagans and technocrats like Hitler and Stalin, sadly abetted by many so-called Christians.
Since WWII, Pope John Paul II, Cardinal O’Connor, many serious Catholic statesmen and intellectuals have opened their eyes to the fact that the Jews are brothers. Indeed, in some respects we should regard them as our older brothers. They have a lot to teach us. At a basic level, Christians would do well to acquaint themselves with the Mitzvahs. See Matthew 5:18. We should keep in mind that Jesus first emerged as a rabbi in precisely the same tradition as the Pharisees whom he frequently condemned. He almost certainly wore a head-covering, prayed in Hebrew, eschewed pork and other treif, had the mezuzah parchment on the doorposts of his home, and lit the Chanukah menorah. Of course, through Jesus is also the Messiah. Through his death and resurrection, we have a new Truth and a New Covenant.
I take it as a matter of faith that we Christians are the providential extension of Judaism. The Catholic priesthood is the historical continuity with the ancient order of Melchizedek (or more correctly “Malki Tzedek,” which in Hebrew means “The King who is Righteous”). Jesus Christ is that Righteous King. He is the absolute fulfillment of the ancient Jewish priesthood, which ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem within thirty years of Christ’s death. It is no mere coincidence.
Of course, few Jews will ever accept the incarnation. And serious Jews regard the doctrine as a blasphemy since it violates the first commandment of Mosaic law. Even Jews who want to accept Christians as friends or to regard Jesus as a spiritual teacher are deeply troubled that he describes himself as the only Son of God the Father. For Jews, this is simply idolatry. Furthermore, Jews also point out that certain prophecies have not (yet) been fulfilled.
Be careful of Jewish and apostate “Christian” scholars who disavow the Biblical truth that the Jewish Sanhedrin actively sought Christ’s crucifixion. In a lot of liberal circles where Jewish-Catholic ecumenism is treated academically, it is commonly asserted that Jesus was tried and crucified solely because he violated Roman law. (See, e.g., John Carroll, Constantine’s Sword; Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity). The idea that Jesus died as an anti-Roman crusader has no basis in the writings of the New Testament or the early Church Fathers. To suggest that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate without the prodding of the Jewish hierarchy is total heresy. Indeed, the very meaning of Christ’s death is lost in this conception, since Jesus is the Passover sacrifice. His death under strictly Roman law has no equivalent meaning. Christ is the lamb taken to slaughter by the high priests of the Mosaic law. The Pontius Pilate of John’s Gospel simply can not fathom why the Pharisees are trying to railroad him into sentencing Jesus to death.
At the end of the day, we have an obligation to practice our Faith as it was passed down to us. We must insist as Christians that Jesus died for our sins, and for the sins of all mankind. The Vatican has amended the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews four times in the past one hundred years (in 1955, 1960, 1970, and 2008). As the prayer has become more sensitive to the concerns of Jewish protestors, it has also become, I believe, less orthodox. Clearly, this very touchy subject prods at our faith, our civil commitments, our sense of history and of fairness to Jewish people. Although the Anti-Defamation League will perhaps never understand this, orthodox Catholics pray to convert the Jews because we love them and want them to experience the fullness of God’s salvation in Heaven, but also presently here on earth. Christians have a God-given responsibility to proclaim Christ to all the world. Peter on Pentecost Sunday declared that the whole house of Israel should know for certain that Jesus is Lord and Messiah and that every one of his hearers should be baptized in Jesus’ name. Acts 2:38. When we decide that the conversion of the Jewish peoples is not a worthy subject of our prayer, then we mistake totally the true meaning and worth of the Gospels, which is the promise of salvation by the incarnate God.
C
chosen_people
Guest
While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. so the first problem is whom are we supposed to believe? John according to which Jesus was only brought for a hearing before the High Priest or Mark and Matthew concerning a trial before the Sanhedrin?
Pontius Pilate was removed from office by the Romans themselves, for, among other things, indiscriminate crucifixion of thousands of Jews. So did the Romans have it right or is this the sort of person who is going to stand up in front of an angry mob and try and dissuade from him killing one more Jew?
Let’s see now: Was Jesus so popular and loved that he presented himself as a threat to the Romans and to the Jewish leadership, or was he was he so unknown that he had to be identified or was he so unpopular that everyone wanted him dead?
The Sadducees were the group who controlled the High Priesthood, the Sanhedrin and who were in tight with the Romans. Why then do the Christian scriptures constantly mix up the Sadducees and the Pharisees?
Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. How is it that on the one hand these very people are ridiculed in the Christian scriptures for being such sticklers to every aspect of the Law and on the other hand break every rule? How is it that the writers obviously know nothing of the Law?
However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes "And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.” (Luke 23:2).
Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.
However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.
Now why would any reader not accept the meaning of these terms as in Torah and in Talmud, and prefer the interpretation of Jewish law contrary to the accepted Jewish interpretation by non-Jews?
Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions. Why then does the Christian scripture say that the Sanhedrin could not perform executions?
Pontius Pilate was removed from office by the Romans themselves, for, among other things, indiscriminate crucifixion of thousands of Jews. So did the Romans have it right or is this the sort of person who is going to stand up in front of an angry mob and try and dissuade from him killing one more Jew?
Let’s see now: Was Jesus so popular and loved that he presented himself as a threat to the Romans and to the Jewish leadership, or was he was he so unknown that he had to be identified or was he so unpopular that everyone wanted him dead?
The Sadducees were the group who controlled the High Priesthood, the Sanhedrin and who were in tight with the Romans. Why then do the Christian scriptures constantly mix up the Sadducees and the Pharisees?
Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. How is it that on the one hand these very people are ridiculed in the Christian scriptures for being such sticklers to every aspect of the Law and on the other hand break every rule? How is it that the writers obviously know nothing of the Law?
However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes "And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.” (Luke 23:2).
Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.
However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.
Now why would any reader not accept the meaning of these terms as in Torah and in Talmud, and prefer the interpretation of Jewish law contrary to the accepted Jewish interpretation by non-Jews?
Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions. Why then does the Christian scripture say that the Sanhedrin could not perform executions?
C
chosen_people
Guest
As for the the attempts by non-Jews to have Jews break the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people:
Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the world to come as they have only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. Judaism therefore is a true universal religion. You do not have to be born a Jew or accept Judaism for redemption. In the book of Yonah (Jonah) we see Jonah being sent by God to a foreign place for the redemption of a Gentile city which is in fact granted redemption (Christians seem to miss the point of this book). There is one God and He is the God of all and we are His children. We can therefore see why it is neither necessary or desirable to encourage conversion to Judaism though Judaism allows and fully accepts converts.
The Jewish people have been chosen by God to fulfill special missions. God chose the Jewish people to be His servant, His witness (Isaiah 43:10)'to be a light unto the nations as examples of ethics and holiness and to lead the world back to God (Exodus 19:6 and Isaiah 42:6) and to bring the Messiah ben David into the world (Jeremiah 23:5, 1 Chronicles 17:11-12).
There is no concept in Judaism that faith in the Messiah ben David leads to personal salvation. There is not a single verse in the Torah or prophets that states or implies that belief in the Messiah ben David is required for or related to personal salvation. The salvation program for Jews is to love God, fear God and keep His commandments.
Every Jew has a portion in the world to come. According to Maimonides there are fourteen ways a Jew may lose his portion in the world to come. While Christianity does not constitute idolatry for Gentiles, any Jew who adopts Christian beliefs and concepts of God, is cut off forever from God and the Jewish people (the Divine punishment of Karet). You can therefore understand why on the one hand we do not feel the need to convert non Jews but on the other the attempt to convert a Jew and cause him to break the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, to cause him to be forever caught off from God and the Jewish people, is repugnant to us.
The Jewish prophets have explicitly stated,that in the Messianic Era, Gentiles will stop being blinded to the truth and realize they have inherited falsehood:
"Hashem (God) my Strength, my Stronghold and my Refuge on the day of distress! To You (God) nations will come from the ends of the earth and say: "It was all falsehood that our ancestors inherited, futility that has no purpose. Can a man make gods for himself - they are not gods! (Jeremiah 16:19-20)
יט יְהוָה עֻזִּי וּמָעֻזִּי, וּמְנוּסִי–בְּיוֹם צָרָה; אֵלֶיךָ, גּוֹיִם יָבֹאוּ מֵאַפְסֵי-אָרֶץ, וְיֹאמְרוּ אַךְ-שֶׁקֶר נָחֲלוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, הֶבֶל וְאֵין-בָּם מוֹעִיל.
כ הֲיַעֲשֶׂה-לּוֹ אָדָם, אֱלֹהִים; וְהֵמָּה, לֹא אֱלֹהִים.
{In the Messianic Era} “Nations will walk by your [the Jewish People’s] light and kings by the brilliance of your shine” Isaiah 60:3
וְהָלְכוּ גוֹיִם, לְאוֹרֵךְ; וּמְלָכִים, לְנֹגַהּ זַרְחֵךְ.
"I will set you [the Jewish People] for a covenant to the people, for a light to the nations, to open blind eyes Isaiah 42:6-7
וְאֶתֶּנְךָ לִבְרִית עָם–לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם.
לִפְקֹחַ, עֵינַיִם עִוְרוֹת
Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the world to come as they have only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. Judaism therefore is a true universal religion. You do not have to be born a Jew or accept Judaism for redemption. In the book of Yonah (Jonah) we see Jonah being sent by God to a foreign place for the redemption of a Gentile city which is in fact granted redemption (Christians seem to miss the point of this book). There is one God and He is the God of all and we are His children. We can therefore see why it is neither necessary or desirable to encourage conversion to Judaism though Judaism allows and fully accepts converts.
The Jewish people have been chosen by God to fulfill special missions. God chose the Jewish people to be His servant, His witness (Isaiah 43:10)'to be a light unto the nations as examples of ethics and holiness and to lead the world back to God (Exodus 19:6 and Isaiah 42:6) and to bring the Messiah ben David into the world (Jeremiah 23:5, 1 Chronicles 17:11-12).
There is no concept in Judaism that faith in the Messiah ben David leads to personal salvation. There is not a single verse in the Torah or prophets that states or implies that belief in the Messiah ben David is required for or related to personal salvation. The salvation program for Jews is to love God, fear God and keep His commandments.
Every Jew has a portion in the world to come. According to Maimonides there are fourteen ways a Jew may lose his portion in the world to come. While Christianity does not constitute idolatry for Gentiles, any Jew who adopts Christian beliefs and concepts of God, is cut off forever from God and the Jewish people (the Divine punishment of Karet). You can therefore understand why on the one hand we do not feel the need to convert non Jews but on the other the attempt to convert a Jew and cause him to break the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, to cause him to be forever caught off from God and the Jewish people, is repugnant to us.
The Jewish prophets have explicitly stated,that in the Messianic Era, Gentiles will stop being blinded to the truth and realize they have inherited falsehood:
"Hashem (God) my Strength, my Stronghold and my Refuge on the day of distress! To You (God) nations will come from the ends of the earth and say: "It was all falsehood that our ancestors inherited, futility that has no purpose. Can a man make gods for himself - they are not gods! (Jeremiah 16:19-20)
יט יְהוָה עֻזִּי וּמָעֻזִּי, וּמְנוּסִי–בְּיוֹם צָרָה; אֵלֶיךָ, גּוֹיִם יָבֹאוּ מֵאַפְסֵי-אָרֶץ, וְיֹאמְרוּ אַךְ-שֶׁקֶר נָחֲלוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, הֶבֶל וְאֵין-בָּם מוֹעִיל.
כ הֲיַעֲשֶׂה-לּוֹ אָדָם, אֱלֹהִים; וְהֵמָּה, לֹא אֱלֹהִים.
{In the Messianic Era} “Nations will walk by your [the Jewish People’s] light and kings by the brilliance of your shine” Isaiah 60:3
וְהָלְכוּ גוֹיִם, לְאוֹרֵךְ; וּמְלָכִים, לְנֹגַהּ זַרְחֵךְ.
"I will set you [the Jewish People] for a covenant to the people, for a light to the nations, to open blind eyes Isaiah 42:6-7
וְאֶתֶּנְךָ לִבְרִית עָם–לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם.
לִפְקֹחַ, עֵינַיִם עִוְרוֹת
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
I don’t see inviting Jews to convert to Christianity as attempting to have them break their covenant with God but rather as an invitation for them to upgrade to God’s new and better covenant. After all, didn’t the prophet Jeremiah speak of God entering into a new covenant with the Jewish people?
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, De tenebris,
Welcome to CAF!
Yours is a most excellent post - and one that provides real light.
I am quite confident that there will be practicing and faithful Jews right up to the time of the Second Coming. Thistle does have not only an excellent point - but, one that is well documentd - still … I see the Jews as faithfully holding a living tradition - one that we as Catholics can benefit from in knowing more about Christ, Mary, the Apostles - all Jews!
Again, thank you for sharing your insights.
God bless
Welcome to CAF!
Yours is a most excellent post - and one that provides real light.
I am quite confident that there will be practicing and faithful Jews right up to the time of the Second Coming. Thistle does have not only an excellent point - but, one that is well documentd - still … I see the Jews as faithfully holding a living tradition - one that we as Catholics can benefit from in knowing more about Christ, Mary, the Apostles - all Jews!
Again, thank you for sharing your insights.
God bless
C
chosen_people
Guest
Well actually this is an excellent example of taking a few words from the Jewish scriptures and trying to twist them to fit into a framework antithetical to Judaism.
Jeremiah speaks of a time to come when all the exiled Children of Israel will return to Israel, when Jerusalem will never be abandoned again, where children will no longer suffer for the sins of their fathers, where Torah will be emblazed in the hearts of all and all people will keep Torah commandments and not sin. This will be a new covenant in that none will trangress the covenant between God and the Jewish people through sin.
Well let’s examine how this fits in with the Christian concept of a new covenant and their being the holders of the new covenant. Are Christians to gather from the four corners of the earth and to come to Israel? Didn’t the mass exile of Jews away from Israel actually occur in proximity to the life of the Christian leader in direct contrevention of the words of Jeremiah? Didn’t the Christian leader bring about that Christians would not follow Torah and the law? If Jeremiah’s new covenant is the Christian covenant, has everyone stopped sinning? Weren’t the Children of Israel made to abandon Jerusalem soon after the life of the Christian leader? Didn’t Christianity set up it’s centre not in Jerusalem but in Rome? Everything in Jeremiah’s words contradicts Chrisitanity and their version of the new covenant. Yet by taking a few sentences out of context, by relying on a lack of knowledge of Jeremiah, by not encouraging the study of the Tanach, by not encouraging individuals to question and reason, its actually possible to point to the words “new covenant” and make people believe that it supports rather then entirely contradicts the Christian concept of the new covenant.
When I see such quotes and interpretations, I always think of a new religion that believes that God did not always exist but came into being with creation. No doubt they would point to the first word of the Torah “בראשית” often translated as “in the beginning” as “proof” of the validity of their beliefs.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Chosen People,
Thank you for writing. You have pointed out some apparent contradictions in the Christian account of Jewish events, e.g., the trial of Christ before the Jewish religious leadership. Let me try and address this one area - and see what we can develop. Then I will ask you a question. 
You comment about the trial account in Matthew and Mark, yet omit Luke’s account (Luke 22:66-71) oversight? The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have many similarities - and, as such are called the Synoptics. The Gospel of John is really quite different, overlapping the other three in only a few areas. I think what must be kept in mind is that none of these writers (unlike, for example, Josephus) was writing a historical presentation. All of these men had a particular audience in mind and wrote in a particular time frame. John wrote last and was familiar with what had been been previously written.
Now, on this I am guessing - but, I do think that none of these men were writing with an idea of either providing a transcript of the trial proceedings or an attempt at objectively evaluating the Jewish legal system specific to this trial. So, while claiming a failure to do either of these aspects is accurate - it was not the focus of these writers.
There is something unique about the Gospel claim that the Jews could not put someone to death without Roman approval. Acts 7 gives us a lengthy account of St Stephen’s trial - and summary execution by stoning. As I see, there is an excellent chance of breaking bones when someone is stoned which is not necessarily true with a crucifixion death. While the Jewish leaders would not be concerned with this (especially in relationship to the Paschal Lamb) it is curious to me that they did not resort to stoning Christ. I really do not know. But, crucifixion was a uniquely Roman approach to a painful death - and, I think this is what the Jews had in mind so as to make a more public example for those who thought about following Christ. Again, just a guess on my part.
Now for my question. There are several aspects of Christ public ministry where He publicly challenged the Jewish religious leaders with a miracle on the Sabbath. So, while it was acceptable to pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath, it was not acceptable to heal someone. When confounded by Christ’s challenge - they did not rethink their Sabbath interpretation (healing like this was never envisioned with Sabbath rules were developed) but plotted to kill Him according the the Scripture. Do you have any idea why the Jewish religious leaders acted this way in the face of evidence that Christ had extraordinary power?
God bless
Thank you for writing.
You have pointed out some apparent contradictions in the Christian account of Jewish events, e.g., the trial of Christ before the Jewish religious leadership. Let me try and address this one area - and see what we can develop. Then I will ask you a question. You comment about the trial account in Matthew and Mark, yet omit Luke’s account (Luke 22:66-71) oversight? The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have many similarities - and, as such are called the Synoptics. The Gospel of John is really quite different, overlapping the other three in only a few areas. I think what must be kept in mind is that none of these writers (unlike, for example, Josephus) was writing a historical presentation. All of these men had a particular audience in mind and wrote in a particular time frame. John wrote last and was familiar with what had been been previously written.
Now, on this I am guessing - but, I do think that none of these men were writing with an idea of either providing a transcript of the trial proceedings or an attempt at objectively evaluating the Jewish legal system specific to this trial. So, while claiming a failure to do either of these aspects is accurate - it was not the focus of these writers.
There is something unique about the Gospel claim that the Jews could not put someone to death without Roman approval. Acts 7 gives us a lengthy account of St Stephen’s trial - and summary execution by stoning. As I see, there is an excellent chance of breaking bones when someone is stoned which is not necessarily true with a crucifixion death. While the Jewish leaders would not be concerned with this (especially in relationship to the Paschal Lamb) it is curious to me that they did not resort to stoning Christ. I really do not know. But, crucifixion was a uniquely Roman approach to a painful death - and, I think this is what the Jews had in mind so as to make a more public example for those who thought about following Christ. Again, just a guess on my part.
Now for my question. There are several aspects of Christ public ministry where He publicly challenged the Jewish religious leaders with a miracle on the Sabbath. So, while it was acceptable to pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath, it was not acceptable to heal someone. When confounded by Christ’s challenge - they did not rethink their Sabbath interpretation (healing like this was never envisioned with Sabbath rules were developed) but plotted to kill Him according the the Scripture. Do you have any idea why the Jewish religious leaders acted this way in the face of evidence that Christ had extraordinary power?
God bless
C
chosen_people
Guest
Well to begin with although Matthew,Mark;Luke and John are the putative authors of their respective Gospels, only Matthew and John are mentioned as disciples and witnesses to to events in the life of Jesus. Mark and Luke did not claim to be eyewitnesses to events in Jesus’ life.Hi, Chosen People,
Thank you for writing.
You comment about the trial account in Matthew and Mark, yet omit Luke’s account (Luke 22:66-71) oversight? The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have many similarities - and, as such are called the Synoptics. The Gospel of John is really quite different, overlapping the other three in only a few areas. I think what must be kept in mind is that none of these writers (unlike, for example, Josephus) was writing a historical presentation. All of these men had a particular audience in mind and wrote in a particular time frame. John wrote last and was familiar with what had been been previously written.
Now, on this I am guessing - but, I do think that none of these men were writing with an idea of either providing a transcript of the trial proceedings or an attempt at objectively evaluating the Jewish legal system specific to this trial. So, while claiming a failure to do either of these aspects is accurate - it was not the focus of these writers.
There is something unique about the Gospel claim that the Jews could not put someone to death without Roman approval. Acts 7 gives us a lengthy account of St Stephen’s trial - and summary execution by stoning. As I see, there is an excellent chance of breaking bones when someone is stoned which is not necessarily true with a crucifixion death. While the Jewish leaders would not be concerned with this (especially in relationship to the Paschal Lamb) it is curious to me that they did not resort to stoning Christ. I really do not know. But, crucifixion was a uniquely Roman approach to a painful death - and, I think this is what the Jews had in mind so as to make a more public example for those who thought about following Christ. Again, just a guess on my part.
Now for my question. There are several aspects of Christ public ministry where He publicly challenged the Jewish religious leaders with a miracle on the Sabbath. So, while it was acceptable to pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath, it was not acceptable to heal someone. When confounded by Christ’s challenge - they did not rethink their Sabbath interpretation (healing like this was never envisioned with Sabbath rules were developed) but plotted to kill Him according the the Scripture. Do you have any idea why the Jewish religious leaders acted this way in the face of evidence that Christ had extraordinary power?
God bless
Now we know that the Gospel of Mark (who was not an eyewitness) was the first synoptic Gospel since Matthew copied about 90% of the Gospel of Mark (600 out of 660 verses) and Luke copied over 50% of the Gospel of Mark. Now if Matthew really was a disciple and a witness to events why would he need to copy Mark and rely so heavily of Marks version of events ? (why would he refer to himself in the third person in Matthew 9:9?). Which leaves us with John which contains material not found in Mark, contradicts events reported in Matthew and Luke and contains none of the" historical material" contained only in Matthew and Luke such as infancy and childhood.To make matters even more complicated, whenever they reported "historical material"l not found in Mark (on whose Gospel they obviously relied) and although they were not eyewitnesses, they contradict each other and make alterations and additions to Mark’s Jesus story.
The Epistles make no mention of the Gospels which strongly suggest that the Gospels did not exist until after the Epistles were written. Although this earliest Christian document was written much closer to the alleged lifetime of Jesus, the Epistles speak of a divine being with virtually no reference to physical events on earth or in history. There are no sayings of Jesus, or parables, or miracles or details about his life. There is no crucifixion mentioned, no empty tomb, no alleged rising from the tomb.
Although Christian scholars put forward that the Gospels existed in some form by the late first century of the common era, the first time there is a written reference to a Gospel is a reference to the Gospel of Mark in 125 c.e. and the first written reference to all four Gospels is in 175 c.e.
Now although Christians believe that a god had literally come down to earth, this was missed by every one of the 41 historians who lived during the first and early second century, who wrote about Judea and Rome and whose works have survived. Not a single one of them mentioned Jesus, his alleged disciples, his apostles or any of the miraculous events described in the Gospels.
The lack of sources outside of Christianity has led to reliance on forged passages from Josephus and even trying to interpret Talmudic passages as somehow referring to the Jesus. Now Jesus may have existed historically but there is little or no credible evidence supporting his existence.
I
InternetWoman
Guest
The Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark’s Gospel has an excellent chapter on who Mark was and why he wrote his Gospel. Here is a brief quote:
Since Peter and Paul were in Rome, and Mark was their disciple then we can trust they “approved” his writing. I’ve heard many times that Mark’s is Peter’s Gospel, since it only describes events that Peter was present at/witness to.
Not sure this helps the discussion any but there it is.
More references/proofs follow. There is an entire paragraph devoted to proof that St. Mark knew Jesus, though he was not one of the 12. More proof is given that Mark wrote this book in Rome “on the insistence of the Christians in Rome”. I won’t put them here because they are quite long but I could if interest was sufficient.
Since Peter and Paul were in Rome, and Mark was their disciple then we can trust they “approved” his writing. I’ve heard many times that Mark’s is Peter’s Gospel, since it only describes events that Peter was present at/witness to.
Not sure this helps the discussion any but there it is.
B
Bezant
Guest
I think the better question is, why is your question, and questions much like it, still relevant centuries after Christianity split from Judaism?
B
Bezant
Guest
To be fair, I don’t think Christians have properly answered the objections Jews raise about Christianity.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Your claim regarding percentages of copying is nothing but speculation. The Gospels are bound to have similarities because at times they concentrate on the same events and are guided by the Holy Spirit.
I read this once somewhere and it made perfect sense. The Gospel authors are like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians, but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.
There is good evidence all the Gospels were written before 70 AD.
There are many 1st and 2nd century historians who comments about Jesus, the miraculous events in the Gospels etc.
Cornelius Tacitus (writing in estimated 116AD) confirms that Jesus did exist, that Jesus was the founder of Christianity, that Jesus was put to death by Pilate, that Christianity originated in Judea with Jesus, and that Christianity later spread to Rome.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (writing in estimated 41-54AD) records Christians being expelled from Rome, which confirms Acts 18:2, and Gaius confirms the Christian faith was founded in Christ.
Thallus (writing in estimated 52AD), writes about the darkness that occurred during Jesus’ crucifixion, but tries it explain it away as a solar eclipse. Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD said a solar eclipse can not happen during a full moon because of the alignment of planets, which I bey any astronomer can confirm.
Celsus (writing in estimated 178AD), is a hostile pagan source. Celsus writes about Jesus’ miracles, Jesus’ virgin birth, the Apostles, John the Baptist, Jesus’ crucifixion, Jesus’ divinity (which Celsus’ was skeptical of like the pharisees. They could not understand the spiritual implications of Jesus’ atonement for sin).
Lucian of Samasota (writing estimated 120 - 180 AD), confirms Jesus did exist, and Jesus was the founder of Christianity, that Jesus was worshiped by His followers, Jesus suffered death by crucifixion.
Mara-Bar-Seprapion (writing estimated after 70AD), writes about aspects of Jesus’ life.
Jewish evidence is from Josephus, there are arguments for and against the historicity of his quotes.
Pliny the Younger (writing in estimated 63 - 113 AD) admits to executing and torturing Christians who not give up their faith.
There are 42 sources for Jesus, there would be more if many documents had not been destroyed.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
There is an abundance of sources for Jesus, not a lack of sources. Josephus’ writings about Jesus have not been disproven as untrue, there are arguments for and against their authenticity.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Chosen People,
Interesting post… but, tell me why did you bother to append my post below when you essentially ignored what I wrote and the single question I asked?
Why not give it another shot…
Oh, criticisms that we apply to today’s writings usually do not apply to ancient documents. Yes, Matthew and John were the only Apostles - but, this does not mean that Mark and Luke did not get their information from eye-witnesses and write their Gospel accordingly. Additionally, no where do you identify that these 4 human writers were inspired by the Divine Author - and this inspiration was recognized by the Catholic Church - the same organization that recognized the inspired works of the OT.
Each author had a different audience they were addressing - and the Synoptics had a similar time frame, while John had one much later. All of this can be identified in their writings.
Concern over not every account of a similar event matching exactly is noteworthy. Had they been a perfect match - they it would appear that nothing was genuine and all was forced and a fraud. You essentially don’t expect any deviation from one telling of the story to is the next - yet oral tradition was well established before the written word. Personally, I think these differences not only show individual writer styles but also an honest attempt to provide a written account.
Note, Christ did not command the Apostles to go out and write - rather, go out and Baptize as the whole world is told about Christ.
Christ was a humble Carpenter in a back-water of the Roman Empire, for most of His earthly Life - and had only a 3-year Public Ministry. I am not sure what contemporary historians would have or could have known and written about. Josephus makes a note about Christ and you claim this is a fraud. It is hard to see what it is you really want with your criticism.
My request is to look at my previous post and try out some responses to these items.
God bless
Interesting post… but, tell me why did you bother to append my post below when you essentially ignored what I wrote and the single question I asked?
Why not give it another shot…
Oh, criticisms that we apply to today’s writings usually do not apply to ancient documents. Yes, Matthew and John were the only Apostles - but, this does not mean that Mark and Luke did not get their information from eye-witnesses and write their Gospel accordingly. Additionally, no where do you identify that these 4 human writers were inspired by the Divine Author - and this inspiration was recognized by the Catholic Church - the same organization that recognized the inspired works of the OT.
Each author had a different audience they were addressing - and the Synoptics had a similar time frame, while John had one much later. All of this can be identified in their writings.
Concern over not every account of a similar event matching exactly is noteworthy. Had they been a perfect match - they it would appear that nothing was genuine and all was forced and a fraud. You essentially don’t expect any deviation from one telling of the story to is the next - yet oral tradition was well established before the written word. Personally, I think these differences not only show individual writer styles but also an honest attempt to provide a written account.
Note, Christ did not command the Apostles to go out and write - rather, go out and Baptize as the whole world is told about Christ.
Christ was a humble Carpenter in a back-water of the Roman Empire, for most of His earthly Life - and had only a 3-year Public Ministry. I am not sure what contemporary historians would have or could have known and written about. Josephus makes a note about Christ and you claim this is a fraud. It is hard to see what it is you really want with your criticism.
My request is to look at my previous post and try out some responses to these items.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Abyssinia,
Great post! Do I detect some fraying of Chosen People’s criticism? 
God bless
Great post!
Do I detect some fraying of Chosen People’s criticism? God bless
- Status