Jews and JWs

[Fidei]

I have heard that Christianity is the “perfect” form of Judaism… and that, none of the Jewish practices were removed but were “transformed”…

I.E…
Hanukkah (Dec 25) - Christmas
Passover - Breaking of Bread
Belief in the afterlife - Belief in the afterlife
Prayed FOR the dead (Maccabees) - Prayed FOR the dead (Purgatory)
High Priest - Holy Pope
etc…
(Catholics: Correct me if im wrong though)

Now, my issue with the Jehovah’s Witness Religion is, if the WTS acknowledge the bible as in-errant and perfect as many “sola scripturists” do out there, why dont they acknowledge the conscious existence of the soul after death as the Jews did? Anyway, Jesus WAS a Jew and even attended a Hanukkah, as well as Paul going home to Jerusalem to join the Passover festivities right?

No one would ever doubt that Judaism was the “model religion” for God in the ancient times that’s why he sent his son on earth AS A JEW right? Would God suddenly decide to remove our spirits when Jesus arrived? i dont think so…

 

[fermat]

As I understand it, not all Jews believed in the conscious existence of souls after death. This was one of the dividing issues between the Scribes and the Pharisees.

Most Protestants are against the idea of prayer to the saints because they misunderstand how Catholic use the word ‘pray’. They interpret the word to mean speaking directly to God and Catholic use it in the ye-old-English way of asking for something (I pray thee…) Saints, by themselves, cannot hear prayers. But they can as part of the body of Christ. Every prayer goes through Jesus to the saints in heaven. This understanding is often lost.

 

[danlaupat]

I have heard that Christianity is the “perfect” form of Judaism… and that, none of the Jewish practices were removed but were “transformed”…

I.E…
Hanukkah (Dec 25) - Christmas
Passover - Breaking of Bread
Belief in the afterlife - Belief in the afterlife
Prayed FOR the dead (Maccabees) - Prayed FOR the dead (Purgatory)
High Priest - Holy Pope
etc…
(Catholics: Correct me if im wrong though)

Hi,
Hanukkah and Christmas are unrelated and just happen to fall at the same time of year.

I always thought the High Priest to be Jesus.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

I have heard that Christianity is the “perfect” form of Judaism… and that, none of the Jewish practices were removed but were “transformed”…

I.E…
Hanukkah (Dec 25) - Christmas
Passover - Breaking of Bread
Belief in the afterlife - Belief in the afterlife
Prayed FOR the dead (Maccabees) - Prayed FOR the dead (Purgatory)
High Priest - Holy Pope
etc…
(Catholics: Correct me if im wrong though)

Now, my issue with the Jehovah’s Witness Religion is, if the WTS acknowledge the bible as in-errant and perfect as many “sola scripturists” do out there, why dont they acknowledge the conscious existence of the soul after death as the Jews did? Anyway, Jesus WAS a Jew and even attended a Hanukkah, as well as Paul going home to Jerusalem to join the Passover festivities right?

No one would ever doubt that Judaism was the “model religion” for God in the ancient times that’s why he sent his son on earth AS A JEW right? Would God suddenly decide to remove our spirits when Jesus arrived? i dont think so…

The only place, aside from purgatory, that non-Catholics would disagree with is with the Pope replacing the High Priest. We would contend that Messiah is the new High Priest.

With respect to JWs, they claim to be scripture only while teaching traditions of their own. They teach the following things that do NOT appear in scripture:

1. No holidays or birthday celebrations.
2. Jesus set up his kingdom in 1914.
3. Jesus was raised as an invisible spirit creature.
4. Jehovah destroyed the body of Jesus as it lay in the tomb.
5. Jesus manufactured physical forms after the resurrection in order to inspire faith in his people.
6. There are two classes of followers; the heavenly class (144,000), and the earthly class(The great crowd).
7. Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

 

[adstrinity]

The logic behind the JW’s not celebrating birthdays, if anybody is interested, is, 2 birthdays were specifically mentioned in the Bible (negating the Nativity), and in both of them, somebody dies.

Book //// Birthday //// Dead
Genesis – Pharoah – Baker
Gospels – Herod – St. John the Baptist

 

[Fidei]

As I understand it, not all Jews believed in the conscious existence of souls after death. This was one of the dividing issues between the Scribes and the Pharisees.

is that so? what about when Jesus himself portrayed two Jews ending up in Hades? Lazarus rest in Abraham bosom, while the rich man lie in torment across the chasm that divided them. Surely this is afterlife in its purest right? this cannot be referring to the Gehenna outside of Jerusalem can it?

Well, if you asked a modern-day Jew, would they say yes?

 

[Fidei]

Hi,
Hanukkah and Christmas are unrelated and just happen to fall at the same time of year.

I always thought the High Priest to be Jesus.

Yeah… right on that… i just heard it from someone…well, i kinda thought Jesus was MORE than a high priest but it seems it isn’t so… it is ONE of HIS titles rather.

 

[Redbaron998]

I would agree the Pope should not be compared so much with the High Priest, as this is one of Christs titles. The allusion is not neccesarily wrong, but there is a better one.

Remember the Catholic Church is based more or less of the Jewish Kingdom.

We have the King (Christ)
We have a Vicar (Pope) The Old testament has a direct reference to this position in Isaiah 22:20-24. In which we have a subordinate position of authority, similar to a Vicar or in more modern language a Prime Minister. The symbol of this office is the keys. This is mirrored in the New Testement with Peter.

Consider the following:

Isaiah 22:20 “On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.”

AND:

Mat 16:18-19 "…you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There are some startling allusions here. We have the Keys as the symbol of authority (This is common in ancient civilisations where the Key-Holder or Gate-Keeper was a position of often supreme authority under the King)
We also have the manner in which authority is described being almost identical.

In Isaiah it says “he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.” and in Mat it says, “and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So I would say this illustration is much preffered to High Priest. Intrestingly the OT Kingdoms has more allusions to the Catholic Church in the instance of the Mother-Queen who would interrcede for the people,and the local authorities, the Bishops.

 

[Thyme]

Yeah… right on that… i just heard it from someone…well, i kinda thought Jesus was MORE than a high priest but it seems it isn’t so… it is ONE of HIS titles rather.

Isn’t Jesus the high priest and the Pope is His representative until Christ comes to reclaim His Church?

 

[mskejj]

is that so? what about when Jesus himself portrayed two Jews ending up in Hades? Lazarus rest in Abraham bosom, while the rich man lie in torment across the chasm that divided them. Surely this is afterlife in its purest right? this cannot be referring to the Gehenna outside of Jerusalem can it?

Well, if you asked a modern-day Jew, would they say yes?

The Pharisees believed in life after death but the Sadducees did not believe in life after death. Haha…that is why the Sadducees were “Sad u see”…a helpful way to remember we were told in our Bible study class And Jesus followed the teachings of the Pharisees not the Sadducees in this regard.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

I would agree the Pope should not be compared so much with the High Priest, as this is one of Christs titles. The allusion is not neccesarily wrong, but there is a better one.

Remember the Catholic Church is based more or less of the Jewish Kingdom.

We have the King (Christ)
We have a Vicar (Pope) The Old testament has a direct reference to this position in Isaiah 22:20-24. In which we have a subordinate position of authority, similar to a Vicar or in more modern language a Prime Minister. The symbol of this office is the keys. This is mirrored in the New Testement with Peter.

Consider the following:

Isaiah 22:20 “On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.”

AND:

Mat 16:18-19 "…you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There are some startling allusions here. We have the Keys as the symbol of authority (This is common in ancient civilisations where the Key-Holder or Gate-Keeper was a position of often supreme authority under the King)
We also have the manner in which authority is described being almost identical.

In Isaiah it says “he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.” and in Mat it says, “and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So I would say this illustration is much preffered to High Priest. Intrestingly the OT Kingdoms has more allusions to the Catholic Church in the instance of the Mother-Queen who would interrcede for the people,and the local authorities, the Bishops.

Even if the Pope is the vicar of Christ, it’s still wrong to grant him titles reserved for God the Father and Jesus Christ alone. He’s still only a servant and a man, after all.

 

[swariffin]

I have heard that Christianity is the “perfect” form of Judaism… and that, none of the Jewish practices were removed but were “transformed”…

I.E…
Hanukkah (Dec 25) - Christmas
Passover - Breaking of Bread
Belief in the afterlife - Belief in the afterlife
Prayed FOR the dead (Maccabees) - Prayed FOR the dead (Purgatory)
High Priest - Holy Pope
etc…
(Catholics: Correct me if im wrong though)

Now, my issue with the Jehovah’s Witness Religion is, if the WTS acknowledge the bible as in-errant and perfect as many “sola scripturists” do out there, why dont they acknowledge the conscious existence of the soul after death as the Jews did? Anyway, Jesus WAS a Jew and even attended a Hanukkah, as well as Paul going home to Jerusalem to join the Passover festivities right?

No one would ever doubt that Judaism was the “model religion” for God in the ancient times that’s why he sent his son on earth AS A JEW right? Would God suddenly decide to remove our spirits when Jesus arrived? i dont think so…

The difference that Jews have an extra letter “E” compared to JWs. (Just kidding…)

 

[Regardless]

I have heard that Christianity is the “perfect” form of Judaism…
…

Now, my issue with the Jehovah’s Witness Religion is, … why dont they acknowledge the conscious existence of the soul after death as the Jews did? …
…

Hi Fedei. May i try and answer your question?

It seems the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul.

We can see this throughout the Hebrew scriptures (OT):
Gen 3:19. “dust you are and to dust you will return” ,
Eccl 9:5,10. “dead not conscious”, and
Daniel 12:13, “you will rest, but will stand up at end of the days”.

• The immortal soul is not taught.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica admits: “It was probably under Greek influence that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came into Judaism.” and “Basically the two beliefs of resurrection and the soul’s immortality are contradictory.”

So it was from pagan greek philiosophy, not God’s word that the immortal soul creeps in. (The term “immortal soul” is not in the Bible)

Even in Jesus day we see the resurrection was the hope, not life after death. Note at Lazarus resurrection in John 11:23, 24. Jesus says “Lazarus will rise” (not ‘is in a better place’ or something), and Martha says “I know. In the resurrection on the last day.”
In the entire account of Lazarus and his resurrection there is no hint Lazarus is alive somewhere else.

So when it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesess – they have to go with what the Bible says rather than with human philosophies. We are not copying the Jews, simply trying to understand what the Bible really says.

All the best in your studies.

Regardless.

 

[T_More]

Hi Fedei. May i try and answer your question?

It seems the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul.

I’d suggest you read 2 Maccabees chapter 12, as this clearly refutes this.

 

[Regardless]

I’d suggest you read 2 Maccabees chapter 12, as this clearly refutes this.

Macabees isn’t in the Bible. It’s a book of the apocrypha. I don’t believe it is inspired.

But if you refer to it from a purely historical point of view, - and it says some Jews were believing in an immortal soul by then. I will believe you.

It was written in the 2nd century BC , so 100 years after the conquests of Alexander.
That would account for the pagan greek influence the encyclopedia refers to.

But from God’s inspired word, we see belief in a resurection and “the soul that sinneth shall die” was what the Jews should have been believing - and many still did when Jesus taught.

 

[T_More]

Macabees isn’t in the Bible. It’s a book of the apocrypha. I don’t believe it is inspired.

Questions for you. How do you know it is not inspired? Who decided that? Are you aware that the writers of the NT makes references to these books?

 

[Regardless]

I’d suggest you read 2 Maccabees chapter 12, as this clearly refutes this.

Hi there.
I just read 2 Macabees 12. I noticed nothing that talks of an immortal soul. The only mention of hope for the dead was vs 43,44:
“… he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.”

A future resurrection of the dead. As I said, that was the hopr of the Jews. An immortal soul was something that crept in from greek philosophy later.

I could not identify the verses you refer to as “clearly refuting” the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul. Can you give me the verse please?

 

[Regardless]

Questions for you. How do you know it is not inspired? Who decided that? Are you aware that the writers of the NT makes references to these books?

I did not know the writers of the NT refer to them. Can you quote them please?
Do they do so as a mention of historical events or as quotes of sacred scripture?

I read Jesus and his apostles never quoted Macabees (or any of the apocropha for that matter). I understand macabees has a certain historical value. But doesn’t contain any of the marks of inspired scripture.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in the first century C.E., refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books … are but two and twenty” (the equivalent of our 39 today,) So the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E., and did not include macabees.

Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures, ,( using the same counting as Josephus, ) “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

And in writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

Really, the question is: What reason do you have for thinking Macabees is inspired?
Was it the Catholic council of Trent in the 16th century that decided to include Macabees in the Bible?

 

[T_More]

Hi there.
I just read 2 Macabees 12. I noticed nothing that talks of an immortal soul. The only mention of hope for the dead was vs 43,44:
“… he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.”

A future resurrection of the dead. As I said, that was the hopr of the Jews. An immortal soul was something that crept in from greek philosophy later.

I could not identify the verses you refer to as “clearly refuting” the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul. Can you give me the verse please?

Read a little further in the chapter. From the USCCB website…

45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

…and from the New Advent Encylopedia…

making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)

 

[Nicea325]

I did not know the writers of the NT refer to them. Can you quote them please?
Do they do so as a mention of historical events or as quotes of sacred scripture?

I read Jesus and his apostles never quoted Macabees (or any of the apocropha for that matter). I understand macabees has a certain historical value. But doesn’t contain any of the marks of inspired scripture.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in the first century C.E., refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books … are but two and twenty” (the equivalent of our 39 today,) So the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E., and did not include macabees.

Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures, ,( using the same counting as Josephus, ) “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

And in writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

Really, the question is: What reason do you have for thinking Macabees is inspired?
Was it the Catholic council of Trent in the 16th century that decided to include Macabees in the Bible?

WRONG! The following is is NOT proof the OT was fixed prior to the 1st century.

He wrote:* “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books … are but two and twenty”* (the equivalent of our 39 today,) So the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E., and did not include macabees.

NO WHERE…does Flavius declare or mention a FIXED canon…NO WHERE. The fact he mentions a set of books or reference of books does not prove an existing canon existed.

Tell me something, WHEN,WHERE and WHO FIXED the OT canon prior to the 1st century A.D?