My friend is trying to convert to Judiasm

[SempirVeritas]

Okay, what this is not: a question about What do Jews beileve. I know extremely well what they beileve, having had very orthodox friends. I also know alot about the sadducee-ical Jews of history.

This question is not about what generally happens to those who go ex-cathedra when they die. we all know this too.

Nor am i looking for a general, or laymans apologetic for Christianity/catholcism.

Here is the situation. God has blessed my friend with a very inquisitive mind, and a very brilliant mind. My friend is leaving Christianity, and catholocism for Judiasm.

He is completely aware of the “list of 300 prophecies” so please, lets not use them as the thing to show him to convince him. His argument goes like this- picking 2 common reference’s

Isa 7:14
Isa 53

He would say to me “Isaiah 7: I contend and even some secular folk do that Almah doesnt mean virgin necessarily. However, even if God is promising a virgin birth, Contextually God is promising a sign to Ahaz (read the ENTIRE chapter of Isa 7 therefore on context alone it fails as being messianic. Even still, The almighty created Adam and Eve in un-natural ways (by the normal usage of “natural”) and certainly you and I aggree that Adam was not God almighty. Therefore i would further contend that God is capable of causing a virgin birth, without said child being anymore divine than adam, or you, or me.”

ON Isa 53 he would say something like "AH, Isaiah 53 I well agree that this chapter can be rather confusing, perhaps more so than others. However if you read the entire chapter, youll notice a few things contextually… This servant is identified as having children, and by the normal usage of the Hebrew i believe it would mean physical children. Jesus, had no children(physically). This passage also says this servant would be sick, and would see his days prolonged, yet as we know- Jesus`s days were not prolonged, and at-least by Gospel records, Jesus wasn’t ever sick. Furthermore, if you look at the rest of Isaiah, God continually refers to the nation of Israel as “my servant, my firstborn” and a look at history proves that many folk- seemingly Christians mostly considered Jews as “Stricken by God, afflicted. despised, rejected, etc”.

being a layman, I know a few things… 1) he knows more Hebrew than I do. 2) He can easily counter the normal “layman” apologetics (like the list of 300 prophecies). 3) while he respects the Rabbis, He doesn’t follow them hook-line-and sinker, but views them as having a potentially valid interpretation, but he relies mostly on the written alone.

SO, how do we give a scholar of sorts, a scholarly defense of Christianity as opposed to Judaism?

 

[Dokimas]

Okay, what this is not: a question about What do Jews beileve. I know extremely well what they beileve, having had very orthodox friends. I also know alot about the sadducee-ical Jews of history.

This question is not about what generally happens to those who go ex-cathedra when they die. we all know this too.

Nor am i looking for a general, or laymans apologetic for Christianity/catholcism.

Here is the situation. God has blessed my friend with a very inquisitive mind, and a very brilliant mind. My friend is leaving Christianity, and catholocism for Judiasm.

He is completely aware of the “list of 300 prophecies” so please, lets not use them as the thing to show him to convince him. His argument goes like this- picking 2 common reference’s

Isa 7:14
Isa 53

He would say to me “Isaiah 7: I contend and even some secular folk do that Almah doesnt mean virgin necessarily. However, even if God is promising a virgin birth, Contextually God is promising a sign to Ahaz (read the ENTIRE chapter of Isa 7 therefore on context alone it fails as being messianic. Even still, The almighty created Adam and Eve in un-natural ways (by the normal usage of “natural”) and certainly you and I aggree that Adam was not God almighty. Therefore i would further contend that God is capable of causing a virgin birth, without said child being anymore divine than adam, or you, or me.”

ON Isa 53 he would say something like "AH, Isaiah 53 I well agree that this chapter can be rather confusing, perhaps more so than others. However if you read the entire chapter, youll notice a few things contextually… This servant is identified as having children, and by the normal usage of the Hebrew i believe it would mean physical children. Jesus, had no children(physically). This passage also says this servant would be sick, and would see his days prolonged, yet as we know- Jesus`s days were not prolonged, and at-least by Gospel records, Jesus wasn’t ever sick. Furthermore, if you look at the rest of Isaiah, God continually refers to the nation of Israel as “my servant, my firstborn” and a look at history proves that many folk- seemingly Christians mostly considered Jews as “Stricken by God, afflicted. despised, rejected, etc”.

being a layman, I know a few things… 1) he knows more Hebrew than I do. 2) He can easily counter the normal “layman” apologetics (like the list of 300 prophecies). 3) while he respects the Rabbis, He doesn’t follow them hook-line-and sinker, but views them as having a potentially valid interpretation, but he relies mostly on the written alone.

SO, how do we give a scholar of sorts, a scholarly defense of Christianity as opposed to Judaism?

If I were you I’d point your friend to a Jewish person who became a Christian and see if they could answer some things for your friend. I suggest two such men: Dr Arnold Fruchenbaum and Lon Solomon. Dr Fruchenbaum’s website has Q&A and his personal manuscripts that may shed light for your friend.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello SempirVeritas.

I would tell him five main things:

1. Meditate on God and His attributes (the “Great I Am”, the One who was, is and always will be. The One who created time. The One who created matter . . . .out of nothing! The One who is perfectly just, but perfectly merciful. The One who is not merely “Holy”, not only “Holy Holy”, but the One who is “Holy, Holy, Holy”. As Scott Hahn said, the ancient Israelite religion (which we are now a part of in it’s fulfilled state-Catholicism), didn’t have superlatives such as Holy, Holier, and Holiest.
2. Meditate on your own personal sinfulness. Then meditate on it some more.
3. Ask God in prayer to lead you to a deeper share of Truth (don’t worry, we won’t exhaust God – so we can always be taken deeper no matter how much truth we think we already have), focusing on the intellect.
4. Ask God in earnest prayer to have your heart follow truth to wherever you are called no matter how painful it may seem focusing on the will.
5. Worship God. Ask him how much time he spends just plain worshipping God throughout the day. I’m not talking about merely “saying prayers” as good as that is. Because to some people “saying prayers” is only asking for things from God – a sort of “gimme gimme gimme” attitude. Petitioning God for things is great and should be carried out, but asking God for things, even good things, taken by itself is not what we are called to reduce our prayer to. Fr. Altier talks about the ACTS acronym for prayer in this order. First and foremost in this acronym order is “A”. A-Adoration (worshipping God just because of who He is), C-Contrition (being sorry for our sins), T-Thanksgiving, and S-Supplication or asking God for good things (knowing full well, with persistent prayer, we will obtain these gifts from the Father if they are for our good, but ALSO knowing full well that our Heavenly Father will not give us “scorpions or snakes” or anything else that would do us harm spiritually, even if we ask for it). Challenge him to spend time (lots of time) just worshipping God every day if he is so serious about getting a deeper share of God in his life. It’s better if your friend will worship the one God in His Three Divine Persons because that is how God has revealed Himself to us over the course of time. If not, then suggest he worship the God of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” which of course is the same Trinitarian God.

It’s always tragic when a Catholic leaves the fullness of truth-Catholicism for anything else. Your heart is certainly in the right state to want to help him.

It is my experience when Catholics who I know well, leave the fullness of truth there seems to always be an underlying moral crisis. This may or may not be the case with him. If it is though, it may be disguised as an intellectual conundrum, but if you know them well enough and discuss it long enough (at least it has been my experience) there is something else underneath this journey too. Contraception/abortion may be the issue, adultery or fornication, pornography, sexual relations that violate nature, masturbation, divorce and “re-marriage”, etc. This is all compounded by receiving the Eucharist in this state of affairs.

I would challenge him to go to Mass as often as he can-but do NOT go to Holy Communion until he gets all of this straightened out. He should talk to a good Priest. The best way for a Catholic to overcome sin is in the Confessional. Not just any Priest but one who is faithful to the Magisterium (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church - CCC 1466). Confess EVERYTHING. Just do it. Now perhaps your friend is too far out the door to do any of this (I’d challenge him to consider it anyway).

The intellect is certainly part of who we are and needs to be addressed as well because grace builds on nature. I’ll try to make a suggestion or two on that in my next post.

 

[achmafooma]

In my opinion, this is a VERY challenging position for you to be in. After all, we accept Judaism as being essentially ‘correct’ in most matters aside from matters of the Christ/Messiah. As you know, Judaism is the foundation of our own faith and the Hebrew Scripture makes up about two-thirds of our own!

During my own faith journey I flirted with converting to Judaism. There are so many beautiful things about the faith. The Holy Spirit eventually led me to the Catholic Church instead, but the two faiths are very similar in many respects…not least of which the reliance on a combination of Scripture and oral tradition as foundations of the faith, but also in the symbolism, prayer life, rituals, etc.

You said your friend relies primarily on the Scripture, not the teachings of the Rabbis. I would recommend you challenge him (if he hasn’t already) to read the Christian Scripture (New Testament) open-mindedly and consider it as well. If he opens his mind and is willing to be led by the Sprit, the Spirit will lead him to the right place in his readings.

It is also worth pointing out to him that he interprets the Scripture a particular way, but those same passages are interpreted a myriad different ways by the various Rabbinical communities, Christian communities and denominations, and individual faithful. This is why we need some authoritative body defining and explaining what the Scripture means.

The lack of this definitive interpretive authority in Judaism is part of what led me away from it as I was investigating conversion (and a big part of what led me to the Catholic Church)…I’m honest enough as an intellectual to admit that I can’t be completely confident in my interpretation of Scripture, and it eventually dawned on me (through the Spirit) that I ought to rely on the thousands and thousands of people who have come before me and dedicated their lives to studying and defining what it all really means under the Church’s authority.

While it is obviously tragic when somebody leaves the Catholic Church, it’s important to note that Jews are worshipping the same God we are. They do not have the fullness of the faith because of their rejection of Christ, but they still have a special place in God’s Kingdom (see the Catechism 839-840). In other words, there or worse places your friend could go ;-).

Finally, the absolute best thing you can do for your friend: PRAY FOR HIM!

God bless you.

 

[Cathoholic]

SemperVeritas, You probably know all of this, but other people (perhaps even confused Catholics) will be reading this, so I will spell out my recommendations in perhaps more detail than you yourself might prefer. But I do think this would be a good approach with your friend who is considering leaving Catholicism.

So let’s begin with number 2 above – meditating on our sinfulness.

Let’s divide our sinful state into Original Sin and our actual committed sin.

Regarding Original Sin, mankind can only give their own nature to our children.

Dogs have baby dogs because it is their nature. Cats have baby cats because THAT is THEIR nature.

When Adam and Eve who were in a state of holiness fell, their very nature changed. They now had a fallen nature instead of their original holiness. The life and spirit they had breathed into them by God, was now rejected by them. So when fallen Adam and fallen Eve have children, the best they can do is give their own fallen nature to their offspring. Thus we see a fallen nature in their children - Cain and Abel etc. and eventually consequently in all humanity.

This doesn’t mean the children have “black spots” or some such thing on their souls, but it does mean that the original holiness that Adam and Eve possessed and now lost cannot be transmitted to their progeny because Adam and Eve do not possess that holiness by their nature anymore. Original sin is a privation (or “deprivation” if you will) of this original holiness. It is not a personal fault in the babies. The result of this is many-fold but includes death.

There is a spiritual death that Adam and Eve underwent and eventually a physical death too as consequences to this. In the ordinary sense, all fallen humanity (Jesus of course is not “fallen humanity” and the Blessed Virgin Mary was spared original sin by a singular grace of Jesus from the very moment of her conception) is subject to these catastrophic consequences.

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC 419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

There is also personal sin.

We sin against God and one-another. Ultimately when we sin against one another, we are sinning against God. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to give much more detail although we could do that in another thread on this subject.

Psalm 51:4-6 includes both original sin and personal sin.

Psalm 51:4-6 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

CCC 386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God (italics original), for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

CCC 387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another

As CCC 386 states “To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God,” . . .

So let’s look at some of this “profound relation of man to God” or number one above in the next post.

 

[Timothy17]

The only time *Almah *doesn’t strictly mean virgin is when you approach the word with a perverted, secular, modern or revisionist mindset.

Today a 16 year old daughter living in her father’s house does not explicitly mean she’s a virgin, but out of the benefit of a doubt, it would be morally wrong to presume she wasn’t, based on only that information. If we added the fact that her father and family were practicing, orthodox Catholics, then it seems even more likely that she at least ought to be a virgin.

*Almah *is translated as maid or maiden in English, but to stress the point, it can be translated as virgin, which is an aspect of being truly a maid, properly speaking. An almah is a i) young girl, who is ii) living under her father’s (or family’s) protection, and therefore normally iii) betrothed (but not wed). So yes, strictly speaking it does not mean she is a virgin, but to assume she is not is virtually slanderous, and in the context of the Bible nothing short of libelous (why would we presume God is speaking about a fornicator in this instance ?)

That alone should cause your friend to have serious questions about Judaism.
Wikipedia:

Almah (עלמה) or plural: alamot (עלמות) is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable aged girl. Almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. Because of religious disagreements, and the small number of available usage examples, the exact meaning of the word is disputed.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Ex_aedibus]

As a seminarian, I used to work in a senior citizen center. One of the volunteers was a very nice Jewish lady. She once told us that if she were to accept Jesus as Messiah, she would not even think of being Protestant. She went to Mass a few times with Catholic friends and was surprised at the number of connections she could make with her own faith. For her, as far as Christianity went, Catholicism was the real thing and Protestantism was just a pale imitation.

Converting to Judaism is very difficult. You have to convince a religious court, a Beth Din, that you really want to be Jewish and will be a credit to the Jewish people. Finally, unless you convert under Orthodox auspices, Israel won’t recognise you as Jewish and thus you will not be permitted to settle in Israel.

I’ll say a prayer for your friend.

 

[Timothy17]

In my opinion, this is a VERY challenging position for you to be in. After all, we accept Judaism as being essentially ‘correct’ in most matters aside from matters of the Christ/Messiah.

This is a myth.

Read any Judaism 101 websites. Removing Christ from Catholicism would create an entirely different religion. Rejecting Christ from it is substantially no different. The depravation of Christ causes depravity, period. The consequences are as disastrous in (for example) Islam as it is in Judaism, Hunduism, pantheism or paganism.
Judaism 101:

Acquiring a Spouse
Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.

This shocking statement must, of course, be explained to prevent offending Christian sentiments. You find this has to happen a lot in explaining Judaism.
Judaism 101:

You will rarely hear the traditional “Here Comes the Bride” wedding march at a Jewish wedding. This song, more accurately known as the Bridal Chorus from Lohengrin, was written by antisemitic composer Richard Wagner. (Please note there is no footnote to justify this libelous statement, but apparently many Christians are unwittingly supporting antisemitism by playing Here Comes the Bride at their wedding - for shame ! - Tim) He was Hitler’s favorite composer, and it is said that the Nazis used to broadcast Wagner’s songs over the concentration camps.*** (Again, no footnote. The authority of “it is said,” is apparently enough to slander a composer for something he, himself, didn’t even do (namely, broadcast his music in concentration camps) - Tim)*** For this reason, Jews have been understandably reluctant to play his music at our weddings. Awareness of this historical tidbit is fading, though, as is that reluctance.

For some reason Judaism 101 feels it’s perfectly appropriate to include this tidbit that conjures up images of death and genocide within the context of explaining a wedding. The site fails to explain why German SS officers would broadcast symphony music as a form of torture or punishment to concentration camp inmates (not all of whom were Jewish), especially during a time when such music was still popularly enjoyed. These and other puzzling facts you will find littered all over Jewish apologetic websites.
Judaism 101:

Marriage is not solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of procreation. Traditional sources recognize that companionship, love and intimacy are the primary purposes of marriage, noting that woman was created in Gen. 2:18 because “it is not good for man to be alone,” rather than because she was necessary for procreation.

+1 for gay marriage ! Though orthodox Judaism condemns it, it is not a little more difficult to effectively do so when “the primary purpose” of marriage is “companionship, love and intimacy,” which doesn’t even require sexual opposites.

Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not considered holy, as it is in some other religions. On the contrary, it is considered unnatural.

*Emphasis mine. *

Please note how Catholicism, by far the most obvious and prevailent example of where celibacy is considered “holy,” is reduced to “some other religion,” which effectively promotes something that is “unnatural.”

If this hasn’t spoiled your appetite, please enjoy one more slurious anti-Christian whopper,
Judaism 101:

A husband is responsible for providing his wife with food, clothing and sexual relations (Ex. 21:10), as well as anything else specified in the ketubah.** Marital sexual relations are the woman’s right, not the man’s**. A man cannot force his wife to engage in sexual relations with him, nor is he permitted to abuse his wife in any way (a practice routinely permitted in Western countries until quite recently). (Footnotes are no fun, it seems, and are routinely missing on this popular site - Tim).

Not surprising for anyone who knows anything about Jewish culture, the woman is the real boss in the home, and the husband is a peripheral that orbits around her wants and needs. It is not hard to imagine the psychological consequences this would have not only on the husband, but also upon his children. We further learn that the classical Christian countries of the West routinely permitted men to beat their wives “until quite recently.” Why this unsubstantiated statement at all matters given the context is beyond me, but once again we see the topic of marriage defiled with images of violence.

Pax,
Tim

 

[SempirVeritas]

I thank you all for your responses so far,

Timothy though, it seems you were wanting to try to understand their beliefs, and it appears as you are looking at some of their beliefs incorrectly…perhaps much in the same way Vat 2 supporters would say the traditionalist/sedavecantists are looking at Vat 2/catholicism incorrectly.​

in regards to Almah- its not even necessarily is “alma” explicit, or implied virgin, but how does it matter either way given the plain, clear, context of that Isa 7… a question maybe to ask yourself is "If i was a regular, God fearing Jew 2400 years ago, would I in hearing Gods word read to me in the synagogal- understand this as messianc- or would the average scholar at that time understand it…

my friend contends "no, the average scholar/layman at that time, would not understand Isa 7:14​

as per rabbinic aggrements- in many ways they are quite agreed… I once had some understandings about what the Talmud is and isnt and what the Oral law encompasses, and I have found that some of my understandings were really misconceptions…sometimes, even though they explain it in English to us goys, its a different dialect of English… at any rate- tis true, they are not as monolithic as we would think, but there is much in common… i would submit the differing things are no more different than marionite vs carmelite vs Benedictine vs Dominican vs Jesuit there is much in common, but a few differences in practice and approaches…​

at anyrate, i would appreciate any continued help in hunting down lets say "scholarly apologetics/explanations from the Tanack proving the validity of Jesus as the messiah.

 

[kenofken]

Have him sit down with Mel Gibson. They can split a bottle of single malt and have an unscripted man-to-man about Judaism!

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is only anecdotal, but I will just offer - as someone extremely & personally familiar with this – that the only situations in which I’ve seen the conversion from Catholicisim to Judaism work well, is when the convert was never really that signed on to Christianity or Catholicism in the first place. For anyone who was deep into the faith, the final rejection of Jesus as divine and the messiah was a hurdle unable to be overcome.

Accepting the tenets of Judaism is one thing. (Not that difficult. “Brilliant, inquiring minds” often are passionately driven to pursue the core beliefs of Judaism, to learn Hebrew, and to study Hebrew scriptures in depth, sometimes as a way of understanding Jesus more thoroughly, intimately.)

Rejecting the tenets of Christianity is something else.

There is also something about the rhythm of the liturgical year that is pretty inbred in someone who has lived Catholicism. Christmas and Easter are not just cultural holidays; they become primal experiences in our worship/prayer/reflection on the mystery of God. Replacing the Catholic liturgical year for the Jewish year can be personally traumatic when you have finally made that decision – or are considering it. I know non-practicing Catholics for whom Easter is still very important.

 

[Cathoholic]

So now that we are aware that “sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons” let’s look at God with our sinful aspects in mind.

God is infinite. He knows everything, He is everywhere (but may not reveal Himself in all His glory to us yet), He knows what you are thinking, even before you think it because He just IS. This is called the “omniscience” (om-nish-ense”) of God.

Remember that original meditation we had that God is perfectly just, but perfectly merciful.

Remember also that we are sinful.

When we sin, we abuse God’s gift. That is an affront to God too, not merely His gift of freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose to do what is God’s will. Freedom is NOT the ability to do whatever we want. As Fr. Corapi says, “That’s license (licentiousness), not freedom!”

When we sin it is not against part of God. A sin is against ALL of God.

Since God is perfectly just, what kind of a punishment MUST be meted out for a sin against God?

Think of the punishment not as God saying “I’m going to get back at you!” No. Think of it as a detached perfection, the result of our sin. Also in a sense, we get what we want as we have a free will. Sin is a rejection of God’s will, it’s NOT wanting God’s will but our own will. Punishment must not be thought of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God but rather as a direct objective consequence to our own sin.

CCC 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

“Well WHY would God allow us to sin. Why did He even make us?” some will say.

The answer to this is beyond our knowledge and certainly outside of the reason for this thread. It is a mystery so we cannot probe it’s depths . . . . but we CAN investigate some of its aspects.

God allowed the fall and allows sin to bring about a greater good.

WE cannot bring a greater good out of sin but God can. Anything too much beyond this would be for a different thread.

CCC 412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

Punishment for sin, without the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah, would be permanent punishment and eternal. The greater transgression, the greater the proportional punishments. It is just objective reality. This is the consequence for transgressing the Holy Holy Holy nature of God. Since we are made in God’s image and likeness, He is not going to annihilate us. Let’s repeat that point. He isn’t going to annihilate His own image and likeness. Also annihilation would not be just as we’d get off too easy – it would not reflect the perfect majesty or perfect justice of God.

In the state of Adam’s fall, there is now no way that fallen mankind can pay the due for this account that MUST objectively be paid for ANY sins committed.

So we are necessarily all condemned to hell?

No! God gives us a remedy. More on that in the next post.

 

[Robbinson]

If he/she is sincerely considering this, and particularly given the perspectives He/She has shared with you on selective verses (which as articulated dint’ really hold water, but I understand the perspective), then he/she should read through Michal Brown’s 5 volume work - Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. Written by a Jewish believer in Christ as the Messiah and he addresses to most common (and un common ) Jewish objections to Christianity based on scripture (as well as discussion of Talmud and other early rabbinic writings where relevant).

Most importantly -however, he/she would pray about it (and you/we should pray for him/her).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello SempirVeritas.

In my last post I mentioned “ . . . God gives us a remedy. More on that in the next post”.

But I will postpone that “next post” for awhile as my prior posts concerned what you should say to your friend.

I was in prayer yesterday afternoon and I felt an interior urge to say something **to you **first. Perhaps I should have put this up as my first post.

So far we have discussed the need for your friend to 1 - meditate on the majesty of God and 2 - meditate on our sinfulness as fallen humans and 3- the relationship between the two (which will be expounded upon in my next post).

You mentioned that you were sharing fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament with your friend. I think sharing Old Testament prophecies, allegories, and typological meditations are good and Jesus used them (see Luke 24:25-27 for example) and St. Paul used them as well in his epistles as did Sts. Peter, John, etc.

But I think focusing on God’s majesty combined with our sinfulness and our transgressions against God is possibly more useful here. If your friend doesn’t see his own sinfulness or have an idea of the majesty of God, he will be blind in a sense as to seeing the need for a savior no matter how many proofs you give him.

St. Paul for example made a point to his Jewish readers in his epistle to the Romans that all have sinned in the context of yes Gentiles are sinners but Jewish people are sinners too! St. Paul wants them to meditate on this fact.

As an aside, oddly enough, when Protestants approach us as Catholics they often use this approach mistakenly thinking we think we are saved by our own mere works (“Don’t you Catholics know, God is infinitely above mankind, and you need to realize your sinfulness, and your need for a Savior?”). We agree we’re sinners in need of the salvation that Jesus offers but I’m not sure our Protestant friends always know that’s what we think. But then when the Protestant Christian approaches someone of rabbinic Jewish background it’s been my experience that they go right into the Old Testament prophecies and typology concerning Jesus (which is good) and NOT use the meditation that St. Paul does, namely that we are ALL sinners (which makes their case less persuasive).

This is important because I don’t think the rabbinic Jewish mindset looks at sin the same way the Christian mindset does. St. Paul as a Christian knew he was a sinner, but listen to him think back on his Pharisee days and get a peek into his frame of mind as Saul the Pharisee. It was a kind of like the heresy of the “Once saved always saved.” Only Saul’s concept of this was based on what? “Accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior and that’s ALL that’s necessary”? No. It was rather a kind of “Once saved always saved” concept that was based on “the flesh” - your blood lineage and Old Covenant Works of Law such as circumcision. But Jesus tells us “the flesh” is of no avail in John 6. Evidently, Saul the Pharisee thought “the flesh” would save him and St. Paul as a Christian now reflects on this in Philippians 3. Incidentally in John 6, Jesus doesn’t say HIS FLESH is of no avail the same flesh that He gives for the life of the world—the Jews of Jesus’ and St. Paul’s day know what “the flesh” means. But let’s listen to St. Paul in Philippians 3 . . . .

PHILIPPIANS 3:4-6 4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless.

Scott Hahn points out that the Greek word in Philippians 3:6 for “blameless” means “without sin”.

If we don’t see ourselves in NEED of a Savior, how can we ask God to deliver us? After all, we don’t NEED to be saved from the slavery of sin right? Wrong! This is why it’s important for your friend to meditate on his sinfulness. Because this meditation on what we already know deeply within our hearts, but may not have admitted in our minds, may lead us to assent to this very basic truth and seek further truths.

As I said, I think your approach with him has likely been helpful, but I wouldn’t limit it to Old Testament Prophecies and typology and I am sure you haven’t LIMITED yourself to that – I am sure there is much more that you cannot share on brief posts here but I felt the need to point this out to you just in case. And of course, others will be reading this thread that may have limited themselves as such with their friends contemplating the same move.

I’ll try to get back on my theme of suggestions for your friend soon.

 

[JeanMichel]

Okay, what this is not: a question about What do Jews beileve. I know extremely well what they beileve, having had very orthodox friends. I also know alot about the sadducee-ical Jews of history.

This question is not about what generally happens to those who go ex-cathedra when they die. we all know this too.

Nor am i looking for a general, or laymans apologetic for Christianity/catholcism.

Here is the situation. God has blessed my friend with a very inquisitive mind, and a very brilliant mind. My friend is leaving Christianity, and catholocism for Judiasm.

He is completely aware of the “list of 300 prophecies” so please, lets not use them as the thing to show him to convince him. His argument goes like this- picking 2 common reference’s

Isa 7:14
Isa 53

He would say to me “Isaiah 7: I contend and even some secular folk do that Almah doesnt mean virgin necessarily. However, even if God is promising a virgin birth, Contextually God is promising a sign to Ahaz (read the ENTIRE chapter of Isa 7 therefore on context alone it fails as being messianic. Even still, The almighty created Adam and Eve in un-natural ways (by the normal usage of “natural”) and certainly you and I aggree that Adam was not God almighty. Therefore i would further contend that God is capable of causing a virgin birth, without said child being anymore divine than adam, or you, or me.”

ON Isa 53 he would say something like "AH, Isaiah 53 I well agree that this chapter can be rather confusing, perhaps more so than others. However if you read the entire chapter, youll notice a few things contextually… This servant is identified as having children, and by the normal usage of the Hebrew i believe it would mean physical children. Jesus, had no children(physically). This passage also says this servant would be sick, and would see his days prolonged, yet as we know- Jesus`s days were not prolonged, and at-least by Gospel records, Jesus wasn’t ever sick. Furthermore, if you look at the rest of Isaiah, God continually refers to the nation of Israel as “my servant, my firstborn” and a look at history proves that many folk- seemingly Christians mostly considered Jews as “Stricken by God, afflicted. despised, rejected, etc”.

being a layman, I know a few things… 1) he knows more Hebrew than I do. 2) He can easily counter the normal “layman” apologetics (like the list of 300 prophecies). 3) while he respects the Rabbis, He doesn’t follow them hook-line-and sinker, but views them as having a potentially valid interpretation, but he relies mostly on the written alone.

SO, how do we give a scholar of sorts, a scholarly defense of Christianity as opposed to Judaism?

Forgive me, I am but a simple man and may not provide an answer you value, but I will answer in a manner that quickly comes to mind given your situation.

First, I would talk about having an over-reliance on the arm of flesh. Second, the importance of a relationship with God and His ability to answer prayer…to clarify issues and provide answers. I am think of Matt 16 when Jesus asks Peter, “Who am I?” Fourth, this entire question rests totally on the reality of Jesus’ Crucifixion and resurrection; it either happened or it did not happen. The learned man is often found wanting when it comes to faith. Do we wish to be learned or a wise man of faith? I know that God will talk to your friend should he pray about the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ. I know that the witness of the Holy Spirit is worth more than any earthly knowledge.

We each can find topics of keen interest, but what is clear to me is that these interests pale in value when compared to the Messiah Jesus Christ. I hope this helps. I realize that my thoughts are worded crudely, but I do this with a prayer the Holy Spirit will speak through you and touch the heart of your friend. Peace and joy to you.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.