JL: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=paradise&s=SSDo Catholics believe in the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Israel in the end times? In the final chapters of Ezekiel there are prophecies of wars leading to the destruction of Israel’s enemies and the establisment of the Temple in Jerusalem where the Messiah will rule a united Israel and Judah. What does the Catholic Church believe about this and what is it based on? Thanks in advance.
Hi, there.Do Catholics believe in the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Israel in the end times? In the final chapters of Ezekiel there are prophecies of wars leading to the destruction of Israel’s enemies and the establisment of the Temple in Jerusalem where the Messiah will rule a united Israel and Judah. What does the Catholic Church believe about this and what is it based on? Thanks in advance.
That’s an interesting question. However, I think we need to go back to how Christ first came to us and the prophesies that foretold that first coming in Old Testament Scripture.Ok, thanks for your responses. From reading those Catechism parts I can see that Catholics only believe in a “spiritual” fulfillment of the restoration of Israel. I am now wondering how the Jews are supposed to accept a doctrine that claims a “spiritual” fulfillment of something that is prophesied as a political reality by many prophets. How would the Jews be able to tell from their own scripture that the fulfillment was to be spiritual?
It’s kind of like if someone like David Blaine comes along and says they are Jesus coming for the second time and no one believes them because he’s didn’t come as prophesied. Then he says that he’s the reincarnation of Christ. And then you say that Christ is supposed to come with the clouds and judge the living and the dead, and he replies that he’s just a “spiritual” fulfillment of that prophecy.
I noticed this passage in the catechism: 674 The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus.
If you’re hoping for the recognition of Jesus by “all Israel” then you may need to explain better from the Jewish scriptures how Jesus was supposed to fulfill them, otherwise they will just continue interpreting them by the plain meaning and see claims of “spiritual” fulfillment as just twisting scripture. Thanks.
“Some” Jews believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Mormonism, and even Islam. That doesn’t lend credibility to these religions. Jews are instructed to carry out the laws of the Torah no matter who tells them otherwise (Deut 13). If Jesus was telling them that all foods are clean and that he is God in human form, they would have reason to doubt. The Messiah in Ezekiel offered sacrifices and had children. We already see in Ezekiel and other passages how the Messiah is supposed to come so it’s not out of arrogance that Pharisees didn’t accept Jesus, it is out of obedience to scripture. Are you humble enough to admit that Jesus might return reincarnated as David Blaine? Just because it doesn’t say so in your scriptures doesn’t mean it can’t happen if we follow the logic that leads from the Old Testament to Christianity.Some Jews *did *realize that Jesus was the messiah. But most, particularly the Pharisees, were so mired in the pomp and circumstance of themselves and the strictness of Mosaic Law that their human arrogance couldn’t fathom that their Lord would come to Earth in such a humble fashion.
Actually Protestants have the same problem with Catholics that Jesus had with the Pharisees. Protestants see Catholics as so steeped in their tradition that it blinds them to what the scriptures actually say. That’s why Catholics have oppressed the poor with indulgences, engaged in the Crusades, haven’t excommunicated Hitler–the usual allegations. I have no problem with Catholics having a tradition, it’s no different than Jews having a sacred tradition. I’m just looking for real scriptural evidence as to why one would replace the other.Christ didn’t set out to change the minds of those whose minds (hearts) where “hardened.” He set out to educate and change the hearts of those who understood the spirit of God’s message, but who *also *participated in the Mosaic Law with humility and piety, not obviousness.
As for why the Jews of today still do not see Christ as the messiah: The same argument can be said of why Protestants do not see the Catholic Church as the fullness of Christianity. As with the Jews, Catholics believe that our Protestant brothers practice some of the truth but, often, their hearts are hardened to the fullness of it (Sacred Tradition, the practice of Christianity before the New Testament was fully compiled and canonized, and the Teaching body that formed in concert with both).
Actually Jews also have their own sacred tradition, it is what tells them how to obey the laws. Catholics should know that you need a tradition to be unified. However, as far as scriptures go, the Jews are the only ones going by the Old Testament and anything new must be foretold in the the Old Testament. You have to start there, not with the claims of Jesus.Perhaps it’s because, as with the Jews and their Scripture, Protestants (through the the sola scriptura doctrine) pay attention only to the literalness of words on the pages of a Bible, rather than Sacred Traditions defined by Christ and given to the men and women of his time. who, through the Holy Spirit, compiled and defined these Sacred Traditions and teachings of early pre-New Testament Christianity into the majority of what a typical Protestant holds in their hands.
In short, Catholics believe the spirit of the Word,* in coordination* with Scripture, creates a better fullness of faith in tandem over merely following the letter of the Word (which some Jews and many Protestants do).
The Jews will see the Messiah as their scriptures teach them until they are shown where a viable transition is to Christianity.Until the Jews see the Messiah as more than just a radical dispensing of their Mosaic Law and comprehend that the New Covenant is meant for all mankind, things will remain as they are
The above is just my interpretation, based on my catechism.
That’s a very nice list and some of those do apply to a future Messiah, but most of them are taken out of context to make the application to Jesus. Look them up in the original full passage. I’m not saying that you can’t see Jesus in there if you look hard enough, but you could pull a bunch of passages out of context and make anyone the Messiah if you wanted to. Which scriptures in particular show that Jesus is the one we should pull things out of context for?
Your response presumes that Jesus isn’t God. Catholics don’t see it that way. I appreciate what you ask here, but I must hold to Jesus as the Second Person here for my explanation to hold. I must also hold to the Catholic dogma that Christ will only return once, at the end of time. If you are rejecting Christ as God here, even for the sake of argument, it’s not possible to continue the discussion.“Some” Jews believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Mormonism, and even Islam. That doesn’t lend credibility to these religions. Jews are instructed to carry out the laws of the Torah no matter who tells them otherwise (Deut 13). If Jesus was telling them that all foods are clean and that he is God in human form, they would have reason to doubt. The Messiah in Ezekiel offered sacrifices and had children. We already see in Ezekiel and other passages how the Messiah is supposed to come so it’s not out of arrogance that Pharisees didn’t accept Jesus, it is out of obedience to scripture. Are you humble enough to admit that Jesus might return reincarnated as David Blaine? Just because it doesn’t say so in your scriptures doesn’t mean it can’t happen if we follow the logic that leads from the Old Testament to Christianity.
Your allegations about the Catholic Church here are not only false based on historical documentation, they have nothing to do with the central question you asked. The nature of the Trinity, for instance, is easily cited in Scripture (Jesus speaks of the Father numerous times, speaks of himself as the “Son of Man”, Peter calls Jesus the “Son of God”, and the Holy Spirit makes many appearances, including when Christ is baptized and at Pentacost). I can give you the specific verses. The point is that the word “Trinity” itself is not found anywhere in Scripture. The concept, however, is there."Actually Protestants have the same problem with Catholics that Jesus had with the Pharisees. Protestants see Catholics as so steeped in their tradition that it blinds them to what the scriptures actually say. That’s why Catholics have oppressed the poor with indulgences, engaged in the Crusades, haven’t excommunicated Hitler–the usual allegations. I have no problem with Catholics having a tradition, it’s no different than Jews having a sacred tradition. I’m just looking for real scriptural evidence as to why one would replace the other.
Catholics have Sacred Scripture (which they compiled formally at the Synod of Hippo in 393), *and *Sacred Tradition (Christianity was taught and passed on by voice and is noted by St. John in his letter to Timothy, long before the New Testament was ever put to parchment) *and *Sacred Teaching (our Bishop of Rome and all other bishops, given authority by their predecessors and they before them to the time of the Apostles) to maintain what Catholics learn."Actually Jews also have their own sacred tradition, it is what tells them how to obey the laws. Catholics should know that you need a tradition to be unified. However, as far as scriptures go, the Jews are the only ones going by the Old Testament and anything new must be foretold in the the Old Testament. You have to start there, not with the claims of Jesus.
I agree. The Jews may be looking for a messiah that is a warrior (a common thought when Jesus arrived). They may be looking for something else. Catholics believe that the Jews are in for a very long wait, for the Messiah has come already."The Jews will see the Messiah as their scriptures teach them until they are shown where a viable transition is to Christianity.
I don’t make claims to the authentication of the website’s translation. You can, of course, use whatever translation you choose to verify and site. But here, I think you’re debating for argument’s sake, and not to help in answering your own question."That’s a very nice list and some of those do apply to a future Messiah, but most of them are taken out of context to make the application to Jesus. Look them up in the original full passage. I’m not saying that you can’t see Jesus in there if you look hard enough, but you could pull a bunch of passages out of context and make anyone the Messiah if you wanted to. Which scriptures in particular show that Jesus is the one we should pull things out of context for?
The explicit statement you are asking for doesn’t exist - if it did, som rabbi - Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus - would have recognized it and said “psst, Caiaphas, this guy Jesus fits the prophecy” and instead of trying to have Jesus executed for blasphemy the Sanhedrin would have been supporting him.I’m still only seeing so-called proofs from Christian sources. I’m looking for proof from the Old Testament.
Any Christian literate in the New Testament would reject your assertion that Christianity means any of those things:I’m looking for something in the Old Testament where the *plain meaning *talks about some kind of change in the belief in one God, rejection of Israel as a people and their Law forever, the idea that the Messiah would be God instead of man, the change in atoning for sin–anything.