Sacred Scripture, and Judaism

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManRay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManRay

Guest
I was trying to ascertain whether there was really in any basis for consistency, and stumbled upon a catholic website that talked about this. I found it interesting.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

As regards to the question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one

Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.
There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.
 
Yes there is Jewish origin within Catholicism, yes at one time reading the bible was discouraged for various reasons. I think today reading the bible is more accepted with our beloved Catholic religion.
 
Did you even bother reading the article? Or did you get through the first five or so paragraphs, read what you wanted to hear, then stopped reading to come post this?

That entire article is a refutation of that position. It sets out to disprove that mindset, not allow for it, and definitely not to teach it.
Ctomlin said:
Yes there is Jewish origin within Catholicism, yes at one time reading the bible was discouraged for various reasons. I think today reading the bible is more accepted with our beloved Catholic religion.
Click to expand...
It isn’t that reading the Bible was discouraged. If people were discouraged from reading the Bible, we wouldn’t have scripture readings during Mass. It was more a fact that literacy was not widespread, so people -couldn’t- read the Bible. Additionally, books in general were rare because they had to be hand-written. And with a book as large and important as the Bible, special care was taken in their creation. (We refer to these as illuminated manuscripts, and they are some of the most beautiful things ever set to paper.) Due to their complexity, size and intrinsic value, they were kept locked away, as they were heavy temptations to thieves and other vagrants. In the modern age, where a higher premium is placed on literacy, reading the Bible has become more prominent. Unfortunately, this has lead to a lot of people create their own, wildly flawed, interpretations.
 
ManRay said:
I was trying to ascertain whether there was really in any basis for consistency, and stumbled upon a catholic website that talked about this. I found it interesting.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

As regards to the question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one

Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.
There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.
Click to expand...
Well, Jesus was a jew and he understood the scriptures as referring to him. Jesus said that he come to fulfill the law and the prophets and on the road to Emmaus he taught the disciples concerning everthing written about him in the scriptures. Jesus performed many miracles as well as rising from the dead to prove that what he taught is true. Consequently, there are perfectly good reasons for believing that the Old Testament refers to Christ.
 
Half truths, literacy was NOT widespread. Reading the bible outside of Mass was not encouraged, and not the emphasis within Catholicism. It’s why we have tradition.
ProdglArchitect said:
Did you even bother reading the article? Or did you get through the first five or so paragraphs, read what you wanted to hear, then stopped reading to come post this?

That entire article is a refutation of that position. It sets out to disprove that mindset, not allow for it, and definitely not to teach it.

It isn’t that reading the Bible was discouraged. If people were discouraged from reading the Bible, we wouldn’t have scripture readings during Mass. It was more a fact that literacy was not widespread, so people -couldn’t- read the Bible. Additionally, books in general were rare because they had to be hand-written. And with a book as large and important as the Bible, special care was taken in their creation. (We refer to these as illuminated manuscripts, and they are some of the most beautiful things ever set to paper.) Due to their complexity, size and intrinsic value, they were kept locked away, as they were heavy temptations to thieves and other vagrants. In the modern age, where a higher premium is placed on literacy, reading the Bible has become more prominent. Unfortunately, this has lead to a lot of people create their own, wildly flawed, interpretations.
Click to expand...
 
Ctomlin said:
Half truths, literacy was NOT widespread. Reading the bible outside of Mass was not encouraged, and not the emphasis within Catholicism. It’s why we have tradition.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call what I wrote half-truths. Those facts played heavily into people not reading the Bible. It is true that the Church did not openly encourage people to read the Bible after the printing press made it available to more people, but I would not go so far as to say that they actively discouraged it. They did, however, discourage people from trying to develop their own interpretation of it, without proper grounding the in historical context of when it was written. This is something the Church still does.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I wouldn’t call what I wrote half-truths. Those facts played heavily into people not reading the Bible. It is true that the Church did not openly encourage people to read the Bible after the printing press made it available to more people, but I would not go so far as to say that they actively discouraged it. They did, however, discourage people from trying to develop their own interpretation of it, without proper grounding the in historical context of when it was written. This is something the Church still does.
Click to expand...
Ok, we are saying such similiar things its not worth the fuss to debate the minor difference.
 
Ctomlin said:
Ok, we are saying such similiar things its not worth the fuss to debate the minor difference.
Click to expand...
Lol, agreed. It would be nice if the OP would post back with a response so an actual dialogue could get started. Without dialogue there no be no learning.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Did you even bother reading the article? Or did you get through the first five or so paragraphs, read what you wanted to hear, then stopped reading to come post this?

That entire article is a refutation of that position. It sets out to disprove that mindset, not allow for it, and definitely not to teach it.
Click to expand...
Could you show me where this happens? I must have missed it.
 
ManRay said:
Could you show me where this happens? I must have missed it.
Click to expand...
Briefly, it is summed up here.

As to your point about it not pointing unequivocally to Christ, yes, it never mentions Jesus by name. It does, however, tell us what He will do when He comes. It presents prophecies as to his actions and the actions that will be taken against Him. Christ lived out all of the prophecies, to the letter. As such, it DOES point directly to Him.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Briefly, it is summed up here.

As to your point about it not pointing unequivocally to Christ, yes, it never mentions Jesus by name. It does, however, tell us what He will do when He comes. It presents prophecies as to his actions and the actions that will be taken against Him. Christ lived out all of the prophecies, to the letter. As such, it DOES point directly to Him.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anywhere that it recants the statement - that therefore Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one That is a very clear statement. You have to recant or contradict that very statement in order to lend substance to what you are arguing. I pulled out a couple of pieces that seem to support it instead.

On the part of Christians,** the main condition for progress along these lines lies*** in avoiding a one-sided reading of biblical texts, both from the Old Testament and the New Testament*

And then after reading the paragraph after the one above which conludes - It seems that even if I did believe in a God, but didn’t believe that Jesus was God I should be able to find favor within the catholic church.* It basically implies it.* Because after all Jews believe in god - but not Jesus.

Now doesn’t that seem inconsistent with the statement from the catechism

For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.
 
april32010 said:
debate is allowed,insults aren’t.
Click to expand...
  1. that wasn’t an insult - I used the word ‘seems’
  2. I’m insulted by Catholics on here all the time. Haven’t yet seen anyone acknowledge that.
Thanks for your insight though.
 
For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the** fullness of the means of salvation** can be obtained.
Click to expand...
We do not say that you will only be saved if you are Catholic, as you seem to be implying. We say that your best bet is by being Catholic. Further, we never deny that the Old Testament is true. When you read it, you are reading the truth of God’s words and Law, and of the covenant He made with the Jewish people. In that regard, yes, it is not only possible, but inevitable that the Jewish reading is correct, because the Catholic reading is based in the Jewish reading. Without the OT, there would be no NT.

Where the Jewish reading breaks down is in it’s failure to recognize the fulfillment of it’s own prophecies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top