Ben,
You and I can only tendentiously comment on the evidence. It isn’t productive because in the end, Christians will believe and Jews won’t.As uncomfortable as it is for both Christians and Jews, they are the remains of whatever came before the Romans eradicated the ancient Jewish world.
**Nephesh = soul. Ruwach = breath of life or spirit.
**No Dokimas, the unknown Jew who wrote the Book of Daniel, set that frame down as a fait accompli. I mean, he wrote about it hundreds of years after the fact. So, he wrote it as History. The Daniel he used as his hero from Babylon could have had those visions or could have not. The man was working on prophecies foretold by Jeremiah and other Prophets.
This is a very long thread which I simply don’t have the time to read, so maybe someone brought this up and maybe they didn’t, but I think you are laboring under a false impression about how the Bible figures into Catholic doctrine.
**Yes Dokimas, I am thinking carefully. I did say there are prophecies in Genesis. 49:10 is one of them. But the book has been classified as Torah and not a prophetic book.
Okay, if you believe in him because he rose from the dead, how about providing me with an eyewitness to his resurrection? If you do it, I will believe. Della, you don’t have what it takes to give the right answers to questions coming from a Jew. Frustration strikes in and you feel about showing me other trees to go bark at. This is psychological. Deep down, you are afraid you could be stung by doubt. And this is problematic for someone who is moved by strings.This is a very long thread which I simply don’t have the time to read, so maybe someone brought this up and maybe they didn’t, but I think you are laboring under a false impression about how the Bible figures into Catholic doctrine.
The writers of the NT didn’t comb Daniel looking for “proofs” for anything. Neither did they comb any other such writings for proofs. When they cited a passage/verse they were using them as a witness to what they already knew to be true. So, you are right that they read Jesus’ story back into the writings you cite, but not with the intention you seem to believe.
The Bible is not a prooftext in Catholic thinking. That’s a Protestant notion. If you want to argue about textual proofs you’re on the wrong forum. I’m sure our Protestant brethren on one of their forums would be happy to go around and around with you about it. That is if you want to waste your time and efforts there.
The NT is a witness to a living, breathing Church that compiled Sacred Writings, both old and new into the Bible Christians look to for guidance. It was compiled to be used in the liturgies and rites of the Catholic Church, not as a proof for Jesus’ Messianic claims.
We Catholics base our beliefs on the testimony of Jesus’ Apostles not just on Jewish writings that preceded the NT. Indeed, the one of the main criteria for a writing to be considered for the NT is that it be apostolic in origin, not merely that it contain anything that might just give credence to Catholic teaching about Jesus.
I hope that helps you in your attempts to get us to see “the truth”. We love truth. We have no problem with the idea that books were written long after the events they depict. We’ve known that for a long time now. It doesn’t matter. What makes a writing inspired by God is the truth it tells not whether or not the persons in it were real or mythological. You are shadow-boxing by using that argument, dear friend.
What I’m trying to say is you are barking up the wrong tree if you believe your information is going to make our faith tumble into a pile of rubble. We don’t believe in Jesus because of some passage in Daniel or any other Sacred Writing. We believe in him because he rose from the dead. It’s really just that simple.
**Jewish-Christian scholars! But of course! Hyphenated Jews. They are worse than Christians without Jewish background. Usually, these Christians converts from Judaism are the worst kind of fundamentalists to deal with. You should not regard them too high in honor because they are very unfair to Christianity. They accept the things of Christianity and deny Christians the credit that is due them. **
If you produce an eyewitness for Moses or any other ancient person, I will oblige you.
Even when it’s through the Biblical verses, Y.?
Well my friend, in that case, forum discussions are not for you. No one is here with the purpose to discuss the traditions of the Catholic Church. Especially in a non-Catholic section of the Forum, everyone is interestend in finding out the Truth according to the Scriptures and not to the traditions of the Church. Therefore, the one who is barking at the wrong tree is you and not me. The non-Catholic section is not for you if you can’t stand the heat. Or perhaps you should study your Bible a little better in order not to say that the foundation of the Catholic Church is not in the Bible. You might be getting some negative responses from other Catholics for this assertion of yours.If you produce an eyewitness for Moses or any other ancient person, I will oblige you.
I don’t care about you being Jewish. I’d reply the same to any non-Christian who thinks Catholics base their faith on Bible verses. We don’t–it’s just that simple, as I explained. I think you need to re-read what I wrote without the assumption that I disagree with you based on your religion/race.
When I wrote you were barking up the wrong tree, I meant, as I wrote, but you didn’t catch (due no doubt to my poor writing skills) that if you want to argue about Bible verses you should do that with Protestants because Catholics have no need to be defensive about the Bible. We don’t base our faith on the Bible, as I also wrote.
I have been stung by doubt many times–about the very existence of God and other such profound issues, but I am not going to be swayed by arguments that mean nothing to me as a Catholic. I wrote you were wasting your time on a Catholic website because Catholics aren’t into the whole “the Bible is the only source for faith and morals” idea like some Protestants.
We Catholic reverence the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but it is a witness to our faith not the foundation of it. That is my point.
All of them. Y.? Or, are you talking of Jews who turned Christians through Evangelical Protestant churches, or do you also include those who turned Catholic? The way of thinking is slightly different in those two kinds. (An interesting expression, “hyphenated Jews”…)
If you are not interested at all in the Tradition of the Church (not the same thing as the “tradtitions”, not at all!!!), then you may not be truly interested in the Truth… maybe at most in half-truths that fits your personal earthly interest, but as for the Truth… not quite, I’m afraid!
**Yes, Hyphenated Jews: “Jews-for-Jesus”, “Messianic-Jews”, “Jews-for-Baal” etc, etc.
Excuse me, but this is Catholic Answers. If you don’t want Catholic responses you shouldn’t have come to a Catholic website. No one is excluded from the NCF–not even Catholics. LOL!