A
AlNg
Guest
Where specifically does Josephus say that the Old Law could no longer save people from their sins?
- Status
Crusader13
New member
Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment. I mentioned Jospehus in terms of the historicity of the destruction of the Temple. I can’t recall if he gives his personal interpretation on why the Temple was destroyed.
But I’m confused if you are merely playing the role of devils advocate by asking how does one refute that the law can no longer save a person from their sins or are you sincerely of the belief that Jews can merit Heaven apart from any belief in Jesus Christ?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t see why. As I said the reason you gave is not accepted by many people today. I don’t see anywhere in Josephus where he agrees with you.
Crusader13
New member
Maybe you misread my last post. Because you’ll see that I acknowledged that I wasn’t aware of any comment that Josephus gave in terms of his own personal views as to why the Temple was destroyed. I mentioned Josephus because I thought you wanted proof from a historical perspective on the real destruction of the Temple.
And yes I’m well aware that many disagree with that view, but the question you still left unanswered, is why do you believe that Jews can attain heaven apart from Jesus?
My confusion was in reference to your position? I couldn’t tell if that’s what you really believe or are you simply asking for a friend
.
A
AlNg
Guest
Because I trust the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father who said that the Jews were our elder brothers in the faith.
Crusader13
New member
His words were in reference to a speech he gave at the Rome synagogue during a conference. Which was due in part to tensions that arose because Pope JPII met with then Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, who openly denied participation in nazi war crimes.
The entire speech was dealing with Jewish and Catholic relations and the hope for fostering ecumenical dialogue. It was not a proclamation on salvation apart from Jesus Christ.
I’m sorry but there is no Catholic teaching, either in Tradition or Scripture that affirms one can be saved apart from Jesus Christ. We pray for the conversion of all non-Catholics because we have a love for our separated brethren, but we don’t lead them to a false belief that they are assured Heaven by openly rejecting Jesus.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
The Vicar of Christ said more than that. He said that the Jews were our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham. And further the Vicar of Christ has said i wish we could create ever newer opportunities for showing what God would like the developing history of humanity to be: a fraternal journey in which we accompany one another towards the transcendent goal which he sets for us.
Further in 2004 A bilateral Committee [of Jews and Catholics]… affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage .”
IOW, Jews and Catholics accompany one another to the transcendent goal, without any attempt of persuading anyone from rejecting their heritage.
Crusader13
New member
I don’t interpret that as JPII’s way of saying that Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation. There are Catholics all over the world with different backgrounds and cultural diversities. The Bible says there are no more distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. We are all one… In Jesus Christ
However, that doesn’t mean we compromise what we know to be true for the sake of ecumenical relations. Which is why we don’t make concessions for things like idols and false ideas of worship that don’t fit with what Jesus commanded of us.
By your interpretation of JPII’s words, we are prohibited from sharing the gospel of Christ with anyone who refuses to acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior. To do so would not be respectful of their beliefs.
However, that doesn’t mean we compromise what we know to be true for the sake of ecumenical relations. Which is why we don’t make concessions for things like idols and false ideas of worship that don’t fit with what Jesus commanded of us.
By your interpretation of JPII’s words, we are prohibited from sharing the gospel of Christ with anyone who refuses to acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior. To do so would not be respectful of their beliefs.
A
AlNg
Guest
how do you interpret:
in 2004 A bilateral Committee [of Jews and Catholics]… affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage .
I don’t see why you say this is my interpretation when it is all over the news.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Well there’s a lot that can be said here. First of all the document was put forth by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews. The document explicitly states that it is not a “doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church,” the entire document and the context under which it was presented dealt primarily with anti Semitism.
I believe Cdl Kasper was President of the commission at that time and he is a major proponent of the bi-covenantal belief. Which has already been proven to be unscriptural. And Cdl kasper has been taken to task numerous times by his peers and other Catholic theologians for his erroneous beliefs.
The document is simply wrong. That’s the simplest way to put it. And as Catholics we are not required, under pain of sin, to adhere to such misguided teachings.
Without getting into a document and Saint quoting match with you, there are centuries worth of documents from popes and councils that have upheld the church’s belief why it’s holy and acceptable to pray for the conversion of non believers, including those of Jewish faith.
I believe Cdl Kasper was President of the commission at that time and he is a major proponent of the bi-covenantal belief. Which has already been proven to be unscriptural. And Cdl kasper has been taken to task numerous times by his peers and other Catholic theologians for his erroneous beliefs.
The document is simply wrong. That’s the simplest way to put it. And as Catholics we are not required, under pain of sin, to adhere to such misguided teachings.
Without getting into a document and Saint quoting match with you, there are centuries worth of documents from popes and councils that have upheld the church’s belief why it’s holy and acceptable to pray for the conversion of non believers, including those of Jewish faith.
A
AlNg
Guest
That is what you say. That is not what the Pontifical Commission says.
Crusader13
New member
Well I hope you look into what Scripture says and what the Church has taught and believed for the last 2000 years before this pontifical commission ever penned a word. There’s a great deal of history and insight into why we share our faith and the fullness of truth with others.
We’ve been given a great gift and Jesus himself commanded us (the Church) to go and make disciples of all nations and to baptize them.
Stay safe and God bless.
We’ve been given a great gift and Jesus himself commanded us (the Church) to go and make disciples of all nations and to baptize them.
Stay safe and God bless.
A
AlNg
Guest
I am reading Matthew chapter 25 from verse 33 and following. It says that those who feed the hungry, who give drink to the thirsty, give clothes to those who need them, who look after the sick, or visit those in prison will be saved. I don’t see where it mentions that they have to belong to the Roman Catholic Church or that it does not apply to a Jew? the Scriptures are infallible are they not?
Crusader13
New member
That section, when read with the entire chapter, has some eschatological implications to it. In the case of the bridesmaids, some were unprepared when the bridegroom arrived and missed their opportunity.
The slothful servant wasted the talent that was entrusted to him and upon his masters return he was stripped of what was given to him and was cast into the outer darkness.
The section you quoted was meant to explain that when the time comes for the judgment to occur, those who did no good works and acts of charity, like the bridesmaids and the servant, they were caught unprepared and slothful in their actions. Those will be separated and cast into hell.
It’s not saying that one merely needs to perform those works that were mentioned and they will be granted entrance into Heaven.
James speaks about this
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
James 2:18-20
This shows that simply believing in the monotheistic aspect of God isn’t enough and trying to perform works without faith is also useless.
The slothful servant wasted the talent that was entrusted to him and upon his masters return he was stripped of what was given to him and was cast into the outer darkness.
The section you quoted was meant to explain that when the time comes for the judgment to occur, those who did no good works and acts of charity, like the bridesmaids and the servant, they were caught unprepared and slothful in their actions. Those will be separated and cast into hell.
It’s not saying that one merely needs to perform those works that were mentioned and they will be granted entrance into Heaven.
James speaks about this
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
James 2:18-20
This shows that simply believing in the monotheistic aspect of God isn’t enough and trying to perform works without faith is also useless.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
James does say that, but IMHO, what Jesus says is more important.
Crusader13
New member
Then why do you think Jesus’ own words are not important enough to be followed today? Especially when he says:
We can’t simply pick passages to follow and ignore the others. There can’t be contradiction in Scripture, so the passages you quoted don’t conflict with His words here. It’s all connected.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Isn’t that what you are doing here? I will go with what Jesus says in Matthew 25.
BTW, do you advocate cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, or plucking out your eye if it does so?
Or do you ignore this passage?
Crusader13
New member
No, I don’t believe I am. I’m trying to view all these verses in their proper context.
No of course not. That’s hyperbole, which Jesus sometimes used to drive home his point. Are you of the opinion that when Jesus spoke the words I quoted he was using the same type of hyperbole in the passage you just asked about?
A
AlNg
Guest
Of course it is.
Let us look at it:
I may be wrong and please correct me if i am wrong but:
It looks like even the Catholic Church may not take this literally. As I understand it, the Catholic Church says that we can hope that an unbaptized baby may be saved. Further, AFAIK, the Catholic Church teaches baptism of desire according to which you do not have to be born again using water and still you can attain salvation without having had water poured on your head.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
That’s correct. There is baptism of desire and the often given example of a person who never heard of the Church or the gospel, possibly being saved.
However, both of those examples aren’t viewed with the same understanding when a particular religion or doctrine teaches that neither baptism nor Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation.
Even baptism of desire makes reference to a person’s explicit or sometimes implicit desire to be baptized and to have a faith rooted in Jesus Christ.
- Status