R
ryanoneil
Guest
In all fairness, the OT says plenty about the Messiah. The apostles constantly referred to OT scripture to evangelize, and many came to believe because of it.
- Status
M
minkymurph
Guest
I have been reading this thread with interest. I have a question for Ben Masada.
Firstly, I would like to get a few things out of the way before I ask my question. Ben, you are a Jew, I am Catholic. We are not going to agree. I have been challanged on this forum before and people have asked me if I feel there is a need for coversion and I will not go into that here because I don’t think this is the forum to that. Suffice to say, I believe in interdenominational diaglogue to dispel misconceptions of other faiths and establish what we do agree on prior to discussing what we don’t agree on. I am interested in what you have to say not because I want to convert to Judaism; and I would say you have no desire to convert to Catholicism, but I am willing to be educated for the reasons I have stated above.
That out of the way I can ask my question. As far as I know and I stand to be corrected, there are various ‘shades’ of Judaism. That is; not all Jews agree. don’t like to use the term sects as it may sound offensive but I am unsure which particular ‘shade’ of Judaism you are coming from. Asking this question may be very personal and would understand if you choose not to respond.
You have frequently mentioned the Pauline letters. I know that Jews and Christians have very different interpretations of the Tanach however I do not know what shades of opinion exist in within Judaism in relation to the New Testament. As far as I know there are various opinions within Judaism as to who Jesus was.
I would like to explain my take on the Gospels and the Pauline letters in relation to Judaism and it is the opinion of many. The anti-semetic take on the Gospels and the Pauline letters is misinterpretation of their message. Pilate is portrayed as someone who wrestled with his conscience and the Jews are blamed because for the crucifixion of Jesus because they where written during the reign of Rome and it would have been incredibly dangerous to slag off Pilate. History tells us that Pilate was a ruthless governor and it is highly unlikely he would have thought twice about putting a Galilean carpenter to death for treason, which is what Jesus was accused of. Let’s face it, the Romans where not exactly renouned for their compassion and if you examine Pilate in the historical sense, blaming the Jews is a bit of poetic licence.
Within Christianity and Catholicism, and I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this, there are many interpretations of the Gospel and the Pauline letters. As far as I understand it , this is also the case within Judaism. I am not anti-semetic. I believe that the Nation of Israel where the first to receive revelation from the One True God and knowledge of the Divine Law. Faithful Jews preserved this knowledge, passed it down from generation to generation and gave their lives sometimes to preserve this knowledge and pass down Sacred Writings. Christians owe a lot to faithful Jews. Why would I be anti-semetic? Of course the nation of Israel had their failings; don 't we all? Have we all not failed the True God? I would guess from what you say that you don’t believe in Jesus the way Christians do but from a Christian perspective, can we be so sure that had we have been there we would not have been standing in the crowd shouting ‘crucify him?’ Is that not the whole point of Palm Sunday? So, let us not judge Jews in that regard.
Ben M, I applaud your zeal and knowledge of the One True God and his Divine Law. I do not understand your take on the Gospels or Pauline letters but please do not assume that all Catholics or Christians are anti-semetic. Yes, there are people who interpret scripture in that manner but not all Christians do and not all Catholics do.
One last word; I am not going to convert to Judaism and I think I can safely say you are not going to covert to Catholicism as a result of this post. We have to agree to differ. I am in God’s hands as are you and I firmly believe, that humans are harder to please than God, if you know what I mean.
Firstly, I would like to get a few things out of the way before I ask my question. Ben, you are a Jew, I am Catholic. We are not going to agree. I have been challanged on this forum before and people have asked me if I feel there is a need for coversion and I will not go into that here because I don’t think this is the forum to that. Suffice to say, I believe in interdenominational diaglogue to dispel misconceptions of other faiths and establish what we do agree on prior to discussing what we don’t agree on. I am interested in what you have to say not because I want to convert to Judaism; and I would say you have no desire to convert to Catholicism, but I am willing to be educated for the reasons I have stated above.
That out of the way I can ask my question. As far as I know and I stand to be corrected, there are various ‘shades’ of Judaism. That is; not all Jews agree. don’t like to use the term sects as it may sound offensive but I am unsure which particular ‘shade’ of Judaism you are coming from. Asking this question may be very personal and would understand if you choose not to respond.
You have frequently mentioned the Pauline letters. I know that Jews and Christians have very different interpretations of the Tanach however I do not know what shades of opinion exist in within Judaism in relation to the New Testament. As far as I know there are various opinions within Judaism as to who Jesus was.
I would like to explain my take on the Gospels and the Pauline letters in relation to Judaism and it is the opinion of many. The anti-semetic take on the Gospels and the Pauline letters is misinterpretation of their message. Pilate is portrayed as someone who wrestled with his conscience and the Jews are blamed because for the crucifixion of Jesus because they where written during the reign of Rome and it would have been incredibly dangerous to slag off Pilate. History tells us that Pilate was a ruthless governor and it is highly unlikely he would have thought twice about putting a Galilean carpenter to death for treason, which is what Jesus was accused of. Let’s face it, the Romans where not exactly renouned for their compassion and if you examine Pilate in the historical sense, blaming the Jews is a bit of poetic licence.
Within Christianity and Catholicism, and I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this, there are many interpretations of the Gospel and the Pauline letters. As far as I understand it , this is also the case within Judaism. I am not anti-semetic. I believe that the Nation of Israel where the first to receive revelation from the One True God and knowledge of the Divine Law. Faithful Jews preserved this knowledge, passed it down from generation to generation and gave their lives sometimes to preserve this knowledge and pass down Sacred Writings. Christians owe a lot to faithful Jews. Why would I be anti-semetic? Of course the nation of Israel had their failings; don 't we all? Have we all not failed the True God? I would guess from what you say that you don’t believe in Jesus the way Christians do but from a Christian perspective, can we be so sure that had we have been there we would not have been standing in the crowd shouting ‘crucify him?’ Is that not the whole point of Palm Sunday? So, let us not judge Jews in that regard.
Ben M, I applaud your zeal and knowledge of the One True God and his Divine Law. I do not understand your take on the Gospels or Pauline letters but please do not assume that all Catholics or Christians are anti-semetic. Yes, there are people who interpret scripture in that manner but not all Christians do and not all Catholics do.
One last word; I am not going to convert to Judaism and I think I can safely say you are not going to covert to Catholicism as a result of this post. We have to agree to differ. I am in God’s hands as are you and I firmly believe, that humans are harder to please than God, if you know what I mean.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Correct, but the NT is a fulfillment of the OT. To say that the OT is all there is of Christ is absurd because that is what you sound like. The New Testament is the New covenant with God. The Messiah has come. The Apostles talked about the miracles of Christ and His love of mankind. All in the New Testament.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**What is this? Are you promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology?
If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, you ought to read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name so that you won’t have to assume that he was Jesus. Therefore, when we speak about the Messiah, Isaiah says that he IS Israel.**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Assumption is the word.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
M
matahari
Guest
It sounds as if you are rewriting the Gospels . Since the Gospels are written by the four evangelists under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit you may need to take this up with the Holy Spirit for clarification. Pilate was ruthless , but he did not wish to condemn Jesus and made several attempts to avoid . However the Jewish Leadership forced the issue by virtually threatening Pilate to report him to Caesar.
The life and death of Jesus was played out in a certain context at a time in history fore-ordained by God. Hence Rev.13:8 calls him "the Lamb who has been slain from the foundation of the world "
It was truly the will of the Father which the Son was obeying. It could have happened anywhere, but God chose the time and the place where the Redemption of humanity would take place. Jesus says in John Ch.10 " The Father loves me because I lay down my life, to receive it back again. No one has robbed me of it, I am laying it down of my own free will. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again.":
M
minkymurph
Guest
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I agree with you. I was was only commenting about “out with the old and in with the new”.
I think you would agree both Testaments are essential. Jesus showed us how the things that God says and does in the Old Testament pointed to what He says and does in the New. In turn, what Jesus says and does in the New Testament sheds light on the promises and events we read about in the Old.
L
Lapell
Guest
Because YOU don’t believe in Jesus the Messiah ( nor that He actually is the Messiah, for that matter ) is not a sufficient proof that we are wrong. And that we may be right is not a proof that we will have everyone believe in Him as we do. Did every Israelite believe Moses and Aaron all the way? Read Exodus, Numbers and the Deuteronomy and you will see that it was NOT the case, even though they were sent by the real true God Himself and that He assisted them by accomplishing through them so many signs… You know the warning God has given us in the end of Psalm 95! He did not say it just for fun!!!
The signs may be many, yet they are not somehow enough to convince the people… So, it is not so different with our Jesus the Christ (Messiah)…
L
Lapell
Guest
L
Lapell
Guest
M
minkymurph
Guest
Ben, I have been digging around in the library, being an RS student I would do that, and I have been examining this term, ‘abolishing the Law.’ As you know one of my modules is Biblical Studies and translations read differently.
Now there is no doubt that the Pauline letters are a bone of contention among Christians and I think I eluded to the fact that there are many interpretations of the Pauline letters among Christians. The Pauline letters should also be considered in light of the Gospel and if the Pauline letters appear contradictory to the Gospel, then it is at least possible the message we derive from his writings may not be what he intended to convey.
The way I am being educated in Bible Studies is that we should not form a doctrine which is based on one word in one scripture in the Bible. The entire passage should be considered against the historical backdrop and the people the particular book was addressed to. I would also like to add that there are words in modern languages that cannot be translated accurately into another language which is why we should not focus on one particular word or phrase when attempting to understand the Divine message in scripture. Now I’m not a great authority on Ancient languages but I have been taught that certain phrases do not mean the same thing in English as they did in the language they where originally written in; which is why Bible scholars study ancient languages. Several translations use the phrase; ‘abolished in his flesh the decrees of the law’ and now you’ve whetted my appetite I will probably be delving into Greek with my tutor to find the deeper meaning of this phrase.
I would also like to invite you to comment on Romans 6 & 7; reading this in conjunction with Ephesians 2.
Now there is no doubt that the Pauline letters are a bone of contention among Christians and I think I eluded to the fact that there are many interpretations of the Pauline letters among Christians. The Pauline letters should also be considered in light of the Gospel and if the Pauline letters appear contradictory to the Gospel, then it is at least possible the message we derive from his writings may not be what he intended to convey.
The way I am being educated in Bible Studies is that we should not form a doctrine which is based on one word in one scripture in the Bible. The entire passage should be considered against the historical backdrop and the people the particular book was addressed to. I would also like to add that there are words in modern languages that cannot be translated accurately into another language which is why we should not focus on one particular word or phrase when attempting to understand the Divine message in scripture. Now I’m not a great authority on Ancient languages but I have been taught that certain phrases do not mean the same thing in English as they did in the language they where originally written in; which is why Bible scholars study ancient languages. Several translations use the phrase; ‘abolished in his flesh the decrees of the law’ and now you’ve whetted my appetite I will probably be delving into Greek with my tutor to find the deeper meaning of this phrase.
I would also like to invite you to comment on Romans 6 & 7; reading this in conjunction with Ephesians 2.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans when he had lost hope to build his headquarters in Jerusalem and decided that the best second place would be Rome. Therefore, he wrote in a more friendly way about the Law, because he intended to allure the Roman Jews and overturn the Nazarene Synagogue of Rome founded by Peter into a Christian Church. Just as he had been doing throughout Asia Minor. (Acts 28:1-3)
M
minkymurph
Guest
I believe I did mention that scripture should be read against the historical backdrop and considered in relation to the community it was addressed to.
M
minkymurph
Guest
He did say those things and Peter did confess him as the Messiah. I cannot comment on what they as individuals thought the term Messiah meant at that time, but I think I can safely say that did not believe he would rise from the dead; they understood the meaning of his words regarding his Ressurrection after they encountered the risen Christ and the belief that Jesus was God Incarnate emerged after Pentecost, not before the death of Jesus. That is what I mean when I use the term Messiah. My coreligionists are entitled to disagree with me; I never said any of the points I made here are infallible, but they are based on the work of scholars and they are not simply my own opinions. As far as calling me into account goes, no one can do that save God himself.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
If we take the gospel account at face value, the council charged Jesus with blaspheming the name of God (Mt 26:65-66), which calls for a death sentence.
whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD’S name. (Lev 24:16)
Of course, the Romans reserved the sole authority to administer capital punishment in Palestine, but the Sanhedrin still judged the internal affairs of Judaism. For this reason, they had to deliver Jesus to Pilate in order to enforce their judgment. To say anything else is to claim the Sanhedrin was not doing it’s job.
whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD’S name. (Lev 24:16)
Of course, the Romans reserved the sole authority to administer capital punishment in Palestine, but the Sanhedrin still judged the internal affairs of Judaism. For this reason, they had to deliver Jesus to Pilate in order to enforce their judgment. To say anything else is to claim the Sanhedrin was not doing it’s job.
- Status