Jews as the Chosen people?

[Zhenia]

Two points: first, I said they are not an anti-Catholic movement; I was not referring to isolated incidents. Second, can you provide evidence that Orthodox Jewish Zionists have vandalized Catholic Churches?

When I was a child, growing up in an ultraOrthodox Jewish community (here in America), I remember seeing tiny Jewish children spit on the ground as they passed churches, esp. Catholic churches. I asked my Mom about it and she said its an old custom from the Old Country, a way of “getting even” for all the pogroms and other antiJewish activity professing Christians did there (my mother was a convert so she didn’t have the cultural baggage other Jews did, but she did know of this.)

A close friend of mine (Jewish, not a Christian) worked as a schoolteacher in Boro Park, in Brooklyn (NY). She was not Orthodox, just regular Jewish. She worked part-time as a teacher in an Orthodox Jewish nursery school and was horrified to find tiny Jewish children telling her that Jesus was no good, “I hate him”, etc. Where do they learn this? From the parents. So if this kind of thing went on here in America, I can only imagine what its like in Israel.

 

[meltzerboy]

When I was a child, growing up in an ultraOrthodox Jewish community (here in America), I remember seeing tiny Jewish children spit on the ground as they passed churches, esp. Catholic churches. I asked my Mom about it and she said its an old custom from the Old Country, a way of “getting even” for all the pogroms and other antiJewish activity professing Christians did there (my mother was a convert so she didn’t have the cultural baggage other Jews did, but she did know of this.)

A close friend of mine (Jewish, not a Christian) worked as a schoolteacher in Boro Park, in Brooklyn (NY). She was not Orthodox, just regular Jewish. She worked part-time as a teacher in an Orthodox Jewish nursery school and was horrified to find tiny Jewish children telling her that Jesus was no good, “I hate him”, etc. Where do they learn this? From the parents. So if this kind of thing went on here in America, I can only imagine what its like in Israel.

The Palestinian Christian, Issa Nakhleh, and the late Jewish professor, Israel Shahak–both controversial figures–talk about this “spitting tradition” among certain Orthodox Jews in Israel and elsewhere. I condemn this custom and am ashamed if it is taught either in yeshivas or at home. The yeshivas I know of–Modern Orthodox and Traditional Orthodox, not Chasidic–teach about the role of Catholicism in the history of European civilization, and having worked in them, I’ve never heard a bad word from teachers or students about Jesus or Christians. But I’m sure prejudiced attitudes against Christians does exist among some Orthodox as well as non-Orthodox Jews, just as antisemitism exists among some Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims. We’re all human and vulnerable to prejudices of all kinds. A lot of such stuff has gone on in America; after all, we have quite a history of prejudice against African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Irish, Italians, and Arabs (Muslim and Christian). Except for the fact they should know better, why would Jewish American or Israeli prejudice against Christians be so surprising, given Jews’ history of discrimination and persecution? The Jews’ being the Chosen People (which you don’t believe anyway) does not mean they are any more moral or holy than anyone else, and should not be held by the rest of the world to a higher standard of behavior, even though that is believed by some to be their mission.

 

[John7]

Statement of Faith

In light of Nostra Aetate…

14th paragraph
“the Church is the new people of God”

Concerning the Jewish people:

We DO:

-affirm an unconditional love for the Jewish people, our “elder brothers in the faith.” oppose anti-Semitism in all its forms, including under its currently common disguise of anti-Zionism.

the underlined is dopey, consider Jews who are anti-Zionist, what, are they anti-Semitic?

• call Christians to repent from past and present anti-Semitic acts, words, and attitudes. affirm the irrevocable and permanent nature of God’s covenant with the Jewish people and oppose the false teaching of replacement theology (supersessionism), which claims that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.

There are more hateful statements toward replacement theology than this, those made by Protestant dispensationalists, a false theology started in late 1800s, popularized by Darby…

from Wikipedia
Dispensationalism rejects the notion of supersessionism, sees the Jewish people as the true people of God, and sees the modern State of Israel as identical to the Israel of the Bible. John Nelson Darby taught, and most subsequent dispensationalists have consistently maintained, that God looks upon the Jews as his chosen people even as they remain in rejection of Jesus Christ, and God continues to have a place for them in the dispensational, prophetic scheme of things…Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church is a provisional parenthesis, a “mystery” period, meaning that it was not revealed in the Old Testament, directly, which period will end with the rapture of the church and the Jewish remnant entering the Great Tribulation. Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their promised Messiah during the trials that come upon them in this Tribulation. Darby’s teachings envision Judaism as continuing to enjoy God’s protection literally to the End of Time…Dispensationalists teach that God has eternal covenants with Israel which cannot be broken.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

all I can say to dispensationalist anti-replacement theology is
“the Church is the new people of God” Nostra Aetate
and, 1 Peter 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation”

• affirm the Church’s faith that Israel’s calling, destiny and salvation can only be accomplished in union with Jesus, Messiah of Israel and King of the Jews, who was sent first and foremost to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mat 15:24) and wept over Jerusalem’s rejection of Him (Luke 19:41), and that union with Jesus is most fully attained in the Catholic Church.

“Jerusalem’s rejection of Him” ??? where’s that in Luke 19:41? According to 19:44 the problem was “because you did not know the time of your visitation”. He wept over it because he saw the coming destruction, read carefully the context 41-44. Somebody didn’t do their homework on this article of this statement of faith

• affirm, therefore, the permanence of Church’s missionary mandate, divinely ordained by the Word of God, to propose the Gospel of salvation “to the Jew first.”
  reject, therefore, the false teaching of dual-covenant theology, which would have the Jews attain salvation through the Old Covenant and observance of the Torah, while Gentiles attain salvation through Jesus the Messiah. Although “the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12), it remains nonetheless that “a man is not justified by the works of the Torah [law] but by faith in Jesus Christ… for by the works of the Torah no flesh shall be justified… for if righteousness comes through the Torah, then Christ died in vain” (Gal 2:16, 21).

• affirm that, since the Church is “the all-embracing means of salvation” in which alone “the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (UR 3), “Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all” (NJJ I.7).

**Concerning the land and people of Israel:

We DO:**

• Call all inhabitants of Israel, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims, to conversion to the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the prince of peace, through whom is found forgiveness, reconciliation with God and with one another, and eternal life.

-Call all Christians in the Holy Land to greater faithfulness and unity in living and sharing the gospel of Jesus the Messiah.

These last two are excellent !

 

[John7]

and I would also like to investigate other sources before stating that Fundamentalist Christian Zionists are an anti-Catholic movement.

cool, go for it

 

[Kaninchen]

It’ll be kittens for breakfast soon.

 

[Bezant]

Except for the fact they should know better, why would Jewish American or Israeli prejudice against Christians be so surprising, given Jews’ history of discrimination and persecution? The Jews’ being the Chosen People (which you don’t believe anyway) does not mean they are any more moral or holy than anyone else, and should not be held by the rest of the world to a higher standard of behavior, even though that is believed by some to be their mission.

 

[meltzerboy]

It’ll be kittens for breakfast soon.

A Jewish delicacy from the shtetl; didn’t you know?

 

[Kaninchen]

A Jewish delicacy from the shtetl; didn’t you know?

Well, I’m prejudiced, of course, but gattini alla milanese has to be the best.

 

[Bezant]

It’ll be kittens for breakfast soon.

8P! Poor things.

 

[Kaninchen]

8P! Poor things.

Well, you may say that but us Jews are endlessly naughty.

 

[rinnie]

I wonder why People forget that it was not only the Jews that crucified Christ, we all did by our sins.

While yes many Jews had thier motives to kill Jesus, there were many faithful Jews who loved Jesus. Look at the Apostles were they not Jews?

There are many People who forget that Jesus and his Mother were Jewish. They we are also part of the Jewish race. It is the first part of our bible. We accept it as the word of God.

The Jews were the chosen people, simply because the way I understand it they were the only people who knew who GOD was. They did not worship false Gods. If the truth be told and we were born in that era we would be Jewish also.

But by God becomming Man he made it possible for us all to become one in Christ by his son our Lord.

ANyone who follows the word of God and believes in him are chosen.

 

[EzraJacob]

I also want to point out, in regard to zionism, not all Jews are zionists. I was not a zionist when I was a religious Jew, and most Chasidim apart from Lubavitch are not zionists. Some, like Satmar and Toldos Aharon, are actively anti-zionist: jewsagainstzionism.com

When I practiced Judaism, I was a big supporter of Zionism. A fan of Benyamin Netanyahu. Even read his book.

Now I really do not care about the politics, but instead would rather just visit both places, Israel and Palestine, and help out with taking care of the Christian holy sites.

 

[trdchubi]

14th paragraph
“the Church is the new people of God”

the underlined is dopey, consider Jews who are anti-Zionist, what, are they anti-Semitic?

Some call them simply as Orthodox Jews. The irony of it is, some of them are living in the State of Israel, some do not even work at all and live on the public purse.” Now that is downright foolish.

http://assets2.static.vosizneias.co...ails/600_44a800d0e0ee890d0e363239ced061f1.jpg

There are more hateful statements toward replacement theology than this, those made by Protestant dispensationalists, a false theology started in late 1800s, popularized by Darby…

Yes the Battle of two extremes, Replacement theology and Dispensationalism.

Good thing is Catholic Answers has a perfect piece of writing regarding this that addresses specifically Catholics who recognize the special status of the Jewish people. The article does not suggest the beliefs of these Catholics as dispensationalism.

“The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds. While the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the identity of the Old Israel, nor deprive it from playing any role in God’s plan of the ages. In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days.” More here

“Jerusalem’s rejection of Him” ??? where’s that in Luke 19:41? According to 19:44 the problem was “because you did not know the time of your visitation”. He wept over it because he saw the coming destruction, read carefully the context 41-44. Somebody didn’t do their homework on this article of this statement of faith

Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) suggest that Jesus Christ came to Jerusalem only once.

Digging a bit deeper as to why Jesus wept in Luke 19:41 one must understand that the nature of the gospels were written in narrative form. Luke 19:41 was preceded by Luke 13:34 where, Jesus express his great distress over the rejection of His own Jewish people while preaching. He cried out his frustrations with the “Oh Jerusalem” lines. In Luke 19:41 Jesus as a man, wept simply because he was reminded of those actions, saw its implications, and a glimpse of the inevitable destruction of Jerusalem.

Luke 19:42 also relates directly to the part of Luke 13:34, where the two verses imply what the Messiah can do for Jews but rejected it?

So Luke 19:41 is affirming Jesus wept because of the rejection of his people.

Would you be happy when your love ones rejected you? Would you bear their refusal to love you back? or Would you even bear to see their impending doom?

 

[John7]

Yes, I agree with this

In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days." More here

Jimmy Akin from his article:
“There are many, detailed prophecies yet to be fulfilled concerning them. And one of these is most definitely a corporate conversion of the Jewish nation to Christ, either involving every single Jewish individual alive at the end or at least a sufficient number that the nation as a body can be regarded as Christian.”
This is all Jimmy writes. Care to expand on this, the underlined? I don’t agree with Jimmy on this one (but I am willing to learn). Try to be specific (please ), I know Romans 11 well, especially verse 26.

So Luke 19:41 is affirming Jesus wept because of the rejection of his people.

:dts: if you can find a reputable commentary series which states Jesus wept for being rejected by his people instead of weeping over the city because of the impending doom, I’ll listen…otherwise 19:41 is not affirming what you propose.

Haydock Catholic commmentary
Ver. 42. If thou also hadst known. It is a broken sentence, as it were in a transport of grief; and we may understand, thou wouldst also weep. Didst thou know, even at this day, that peace and reconciliation which God still offers to thee. (Witham) — What can be more tender than the apostrophe here made use of by our Saviour! Hadst thou but known, &c. that is, didst thou but know how severe a punishment is about to be inflicted upon thee, for the numberless transgressions of thy people, thou likewise wouldst weep; but, alas! hardened in iniquity, thou still rejoicest, ignorant of the punishment hanging over thy head. Just men have daily occasion to bewail, like our blessed Redeemer, the blindness of the wicked, unable to see, through their own perversity, the miserable state of their souls, and the imminent danger they are every moment exposed to, of losing themselves for ever. Of these, Solomon cries out; (Proverbs ii. 13.) They leave the right way, and walk through dark ways. We ought to imitate this compassion of our blessed Redeemer; and, as he wept over the calamities of the unfortunate Jerusalem, though determined on his destruction; so we ought to bewail the sins not only of our friends, but likewise of our enemies, and daily offer up our prayers for their conversion.

Matthew Henry Commentary
I. **The tears he shed for the approaching ruin of the city **(v. 41): When he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it. Probably, it was when he was coming down the descent of the hill from the mount of Olives, where he had a full view of the city, the large extent of it, and the many stately structures in it, and his eye affected his heart, and his heart his eye again. See here…

1. That he wept over Jerusalem. Note, There are cities to be wept over, and none to be more lamented than Jerusalem, that had been the holy city, and the joy of the whole earth, if it be degenerated. But why did Christ weep at the sight of Jerusalem? Was it because "Yonder is the city in which I must be betrayed and bound, scourged and spit upon, condemned and crucified?’’ No, he himself gives us the reason of his tears.

(1.) Jerusalem has not improved the day of her opportunities. He wept, and said, If thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day, if thou wouldst but yet know, while the gospel is preached to thee, and salvation offered thee by it; if thou wouldest at length bethink thyself, and understand the things that belong to thy peace, the making of thy peace with God, and the securing of thine own spiritual and eternal welfare—but thou dost not know the day of thy visitation
UBS
Luke 19:41.
Exegesis kai hōs ēggisen ‘and as he came near’, viz. to the city, temporal clause denoting what precedes the events to which idōn and eklausen refer.
idōn tēn polin eklausen ep’ autēn ‘when he saw the city he wept over it’. For epi meaning ‘over’ with a verb denoting emotions, or expressions of emotion, cp. A-G s.v. III i b e. Translation And when he drew near, or, ‘still nearer’, as some versions have in view of v. 37. The reference to ‘the city’ is usually better transposed to this introductory clause; hence, ‘when he drew still nearer to the city and looked at it’.
He wept over it, i.e. ‘he wept because of (grief over) it, or, because he pitied it’, in view of the disasters that would come over it. For the verb see on 6.21
NAC
19:41 He wept. Compare Luke 13:34, where Jesus experiences a similar sorrow but there is no mention of weeping. Only here and in John 11:35 do we read of Jesus’ weeping in the Gospels. **Jesus wept, however, not for himself and his fate but rather for the fate of Jerusalem and the people of Israel **(Luke 23:28–31). Compare the weeping of the OT prophets: 2 Kgs 8:11; Jer 8:18–21; 9:1; 14:17. The experience of Ps 137 after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. will soon be relived.
NIGTC
(41) The connecting verse is probably Lucan (ὡς, ἐγγίζω, κλαίω (6:21; et al.) with ἐπί, 23:28). Only here and in Jn. 11:35 is Jesus said to weep.
(42) **The sorrow of Jesus over the impending fate of Jerusalem **(cf. 23:28f.) is matched by that of Jeremiah (Je. 8:18ff.; 15:5; cf. 2 Ki. 8:11f.). ὅτι is recitativum. It is followed by the protasis of a present, unfulfilled condition, with the apodosis suppressed (BD 482; cf. Nu. 22:29; Jos. 9:7; Is. 48:18; Jn. 6:62; Acts 23:9). The force is: ‘If only you knew now …, the future would hold something better for you, or it would be pleasing to me’. For ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ

 

[Zhenia]

I think many in the post-Vatican II church, like many evangelical Protestants and some Eastern Orthodox, bend over backward to sound pro-Jewish, because they have a fear of being seen as “antisemitic”. That’s just my opinion, as a Jewish Christian.

I’m sad to see, from reading Nostra Aetate (which I’d never read before since I’m not a big fan of V2) that the modern church has chosen to make statements that oppose what the ancient Fathers of the Church believed and taught. I prefer to go with what the Fathers taught myself.

 

[Limerickman]

The jews rejected Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us this.

Salvation can only come to man though Jesus Christ.

 

[byeveryword]

I think many in the post-Vatican II church, like many evangelical Protestants and some Eastern Orthodox, bend over backward to sound pro-Jewish, because they have a fear of being seen as “antisemitic”. That’s just my opinion, as a Jewish Christian.

I’m sad to see, from reading Nostra Aetate (which I’d never read before since I’m not a big fan of V2) that the modern church has chosen to make statements that oppose what the ancient Fathers of the Church believed and taught. I prefer to go with what the Fathers taught myself.

I don’t know what is in the hearts of people. I do think that the inquisition of ‘Marano Jews’. the various pogroms against European and Russian Jews, along with the culmination of the Holocaust has made the church realize that any encouragement of anti-semitism is a form of willful culpability, if not passive guilt on her part.

 

[Zhenia]

I don’t know what is in the hearts of people. I do think that the inquisition of ‘Marano Jews’. the various pogroms against European and Russian Jews, along with the culmination of the Holocaust has made the church realize that any encouragement of anti-semitism is a form of willful culpability, if not passive guilt on her part.

The Inquisition was never an attempt to go after UNBAPTIZED Jews and force them to convert. Catholic monarchs (often against the stance of the Pope of the time) would sometimes try to force unbaptized Jews to become Catholic so as to have their entire realm Catholic. But the Church never went after UNbaptized Jews.

What happened was that some Jews chose to be baptized as Catholics in an effort to make their lives easier (better job opportunities, less persecution, etc). However they continued to be Jews in private.

In Catholic teaching this was apostasy, and so the Church sought out CATHOLICS who were former Jews that had been baptized. The Church, even in countries without separation of church and state, had no authority over anyone who was UNbaptized. Once a person was baptized, however, he was regarded as 100% Catholic. If he became an apostate or heretic, THEN the Church had something to say about it.

The Inquisitions are often portrayed as The Church going after unbaptized Jews but such as not the case. The confusion comes in because in Jewish teaching, a Jew could be baptized a hundred times but he remains a Jew. In Catholic teaching, once someoneis baptized they become Catholic and are now under Church authority. So in the minds of the Jewish community, those baptized Jews were STILL JEWS and so they naturally see it as “the Church went after Jews”. The Church saw them as CATHOLICS who had apostasized.

 

[byeveryword]

The Inquisition was never an attempt to go after UNBAPTIZED Jews and force them to convert. Catholic monarchs (often against the stance of the Pope of the time) would sometimes try to force unbaptized Jews to become Catholic so as to have their entire realm Catholic. But the Church never went after UNbaptized Jews.

What happened was that some Jews chose to be baptized as Catholics in an effort to make their lives easier (better job opportunities, less persecution, etc). However they continued to be Jews in private.

In Catholic teaching this was apostasy, and so the Church sought out CATHOLICS who were former Jews that had been baptized. The Church, even in countries without separation of church and state, had no authority over anyone who was UNbaptized. Once a person was baptized, however, he was regarded as 100% Catholic. If he became an apostate or heretic, THEN the Church had something to say about it.

The Inquisitions are often portrayed as The Church going after unbaptized Jews but such as not the case. The confusion comes in because in Jewish teaching, a Jew could be baptized a hundred times but he remains a Jew. In Catholic teaching, once someoneis baptized they become Catholic and are now under Church authority. So in the minds of the Jewish community, those baptized Jews were STILL JEWS and so they naturally see it as “the Church went after Jews”. The Church saw them as CATHOLICS who had apostasized.

I am aware of the difference. Secret Jews whether they were false Catholics, or Catholics who wanted to maintain some of their Jewish traditions, does not give the church the right to torture people. Did it give the Catholic King of Spain the right to expel all Jews from Spain on the 9th of Av, in about 1490? Where was the Catholic church when Catholic temporal rulers were making these type of decisions?

 

[rinnie]

Exactly starting with the Apostles. Look at St Paul for example, He was quite an educated person. He was pretty high up in his position and was persecuting the Christians. He for sure was not one who accepted Christ at first.

Until the Good Lord got his attention of course. Then Look at St Peter, his brothers, etc. They were all quite faithful Jews.

And not to mention the most loved and Holy of all Saints the Blessed Mother.