Things Mormons tell us that we should all know about angels

[lax16]

I disagree. The book of Revelation may contain many elements that are indeed difficult to understand; but all of it is not difficult to understand. Some parts are perfectly plain in meaning. If you wanted to use that argument you could exclude most of the Bible. Is Isaiah easy to understand? Are all the Old Testament prophets easy to understand? Are the writings of St Paul always easy to understand? So which parts of the Bible do you intend to exclude from the discussion? On the other hand, the passages in the Revelation that we are talking about are perfectly plain and easy to understand. Here is a more extended quote:

Revelation 22:

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

What is difficult about that to understand? The angel shows a fantastic vision to John; and when John is overwhelmed by the experience and falls down to worship the angel, the angel tells him that he is a guy like himself, and one of the prophets, and not someone that ought to be worshipped. What is difficult about that? Anybody can bring that kind of argument about any passage of scripture.

Whenever angels have appeared to mankind, they have appeared as men. They have never had any wings for example! Here is a quote:

Acts 1:

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he [Jesus] went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

They were two men! Okay, it doesn’t say that they had been mortal men; but coupled with the Revelations quote, it is another piece of the mosaic that builds a whole picture. Here is another quote:

Genesis 18:

1 And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

A careful reading of that passage in its proper context shows that those three men were in fact God and the two angels who later left to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah after rescuing Lot from it. And there are still more examples that could be quoted.

You should know by now that Mormons regard historical Christianity as well as Judaism to be apostate forms of religion, and the doctrines that they teach or believe in are not always correct, and do not always conform with the Bible. Just because something has been believed in for centuries does not make it true. All your arguments seem to boil down to that, which is manifestly a false argument. Judaism and Christianity also do not agree. There are fundamental differences between them, such as with regard to the divinity of Jesus Christ for example, or the Trinity. Each have believed their respective doctrines for centuries, so which one are you going to accept, the one that has been believed in the longest?

You can harp on about “redefining” things forever; but we believe that it is the Catholics and Jews who have “redefined” what is in the Bible! The Catholics and Jews disagree on fundamental doctrines; so who has been doing the “redefining” things from whose point of view? The Catholics have been “redefining” God from the Jewish point of view! So you need to make up your mind whether you want to be a Jew or a Christian for start. Once you have made that decision, maybe it will be time to start looking into Mormonism.

zerinus - I will not agree with you that Rev is “easy to understand.” Who do you say wrote the Book of Rev? Do you believe it is foretelling the future? Who was the author writing to?

Actually, no I never knew that LDS consider Judaism to be apostate. That’s very interesting…However, it requires me to ask the question AGAIN “If something is apostate (OT) then why quote it?”

Please explain how the Jews have redefined the Bible. Please explain where Catholics and Jews disagree on fundamental doctrines.

Please explain why I have to decide whether to be a Jew or a Christian?
Please explain why once I make that decision that I should start looking into Mormonism?

From the book Salvation is From the Jews by Roy Schoeman (page 80):
“And so it is throughout salvation history. God’s trinitarian nature was hinted at, but not revealed, in the Old Testament. Many of the central doctrines of Christianity, including the trinitarian nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, only gradually became clear in the centuries following Jesus’ death…Similarly, the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament often contain veiled information about the Messiah that became clear only later, through the inspiration of the Talmudic sages, of the Gospel writers, or through the life of Jesus Himself.”

 

[TheosisM]

(I’ve posted this on another thread but this is probably a better thread for it).

Rabbi Ari Enkin from About.com Judaism states “Judaism does believe in the existence of angels. Angels are independent beings created by God intended to fulfill specific roles. They have no form or shape. Unlike commonly thought - people do not become angels after death. There is no relation to the soul of a person and the angels in Heaven.”

Thanks, now I’m curious as to where this belief came from. Does the OT say anything about the nature/origin of angels, and if not, where did this belief in Judaism come from, and is it doctrinal?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Hebrews 1

14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Luke 24

39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost (or spirit) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Ephesians 6

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

John 4

24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Can we agree that angels are spirits now?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Well, you settle it for Catholics this way, certainly.

but…Mormons don’t get their doctrine from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Good to see you care more about the nature of the source i provided and didn’t bother to read it and analyze the argument Thomas Aquinas presented.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus - I will not agree with you that Rev is “easy to understand.”

You need to read people’s posts more carefully. I didn’t say all of it was easy to understand. I said some parts are easy to understand, such as the part I had quoted.

Who do you say wrote the Book of Rev?

John the Revelator, also known as John the Beloved. He is the same as John Apostle.

Do you believe it is foretelling the future?

Yes.

Who was the author writing to?

It tells you. It was addressed to “the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (Revelation 1:11). That implies all future generations as well. The following verses also tell you who it was written to:

Revelation 2:

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; …

Revelation 3:

7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; …

“Angel” here refers the presiding elders who were in charge of the churches mentioned, thus providing further proof that mortal men can also be called angels.

Actually, no I never knew that LDS consider Judaism to be apostate. That’s very interesting…However, it requires me to ask the question AGAIN “If something is apostate (OT) then why quote it?”

I said Judaism is apostate. I didn’t say the OT was apostate.

Please explain how the Jews have redefined the Bible.

Jesus has already answered that question:

Matthew 15:

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Please explain where Catholics and Jews disagree on fundamental doctrines.

I thought everybody knew that. They have very fundamental differences over who Jesus Christ is, and how the nature of God is to be understood—i.e. the Trinity versus monotheism.

Please explain why I have to decide whether to be a Jew or a Christian?

Because you are failing to understand that Judaism and Christianity have very fundamental theological differences between them, similar to the kind you have noticed between them and Mormonism.

Please explain why once I make that decision that I should start looking into Mormonism?

Because you are already looking at Mormonism, but looking at it from the skewed eyes of ignoring the fundamental differences that already exists between Christianity and Judaism. You need to sort that one out first, before your examination of Mormonism can be more meaningful one.

From the book Salvation is From the Jews by Roy Schoeman (page 80):
“And so it is throughout salvation history. God’s trinitarian nature was hinted at, but not revealed, in the Old Testament. Many of the central doctrines of Christianity, including the trinitarian nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, only gradually became clear in the centuries following Jesus’ death…Similarly, the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament often contain veiled information about the Messiah that became clear only later, through the inspiration of the Talmudic sages, of the Gospel writers, or through the life of Jesus Himself.”

Have you tried telling a Jew that?

 

[lax16]

zerinus - one more question.

At one point did Judaism fall into apostasy?

 

[zerinus]

zerinus - one more question.

At one point did Judaism fall into apostasy?

They became fully apostate when they rejected Jesus Christ, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the gentiles, as this verse teaches:

Matthew 21:

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation * bringing forth the fruits thereof.*

 

[TheQuestioner]

sigh…again Mormons…

		 		  		 		 			 			Hebrews 1

14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Luke 24

39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost (or spirit) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Ephesians 6

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

John 4

24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Can we agree that angels are spirits now?

 

[lax16]

Thanks, now I’m curious as to where this belief came from. Does the OT say anything about the nature/origin of angels, and if not, where did this belief in Judaism come from, and is it doctrinal?

Theosis - I am truly humbled by this question as I would guess rabbinical scholars have probably debated where the belief in angels come from… but I will give it my best shot.

The belief in angels comes from the fact that they are mentioned in (at least) the books of Genesis and Exodus which are part of the Torah.

Orthodox Judaism claims that both the Torah (the 1st 5 books of the Hebrew Bible) and the Oral Torah (the interpretive Talmud) are authoritative and fixed regarding Jewish doctrine and observance.
(the 1st 5 books of the Hebrew Bible include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy).

It appears to me that if something is mentioned in the Torah then it is part of Jewish doctrine. How Jewish scholars have determined the nature/origin of angels? I can’t seem to find that information.

 

[lax16]

They became fully apostate when they rejected Jesus Christ, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the gentiles, as this verse teaches:

Matthew 21:

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation * bringing forth the fruits thereof.*

Please give your definition of “fully apostate”.
You say the gospel dispensation was taken away from the Jews? Please explain.

The New American Bible states:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit. (It does not specify Gentiles. Also, in the reference aid section for this scriptural passage it states that “people” was referring to believing Israelites and Gentiles, the church of Jesus).

Obviously, some Jews and many non-Jews did reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. However, in doing so, they were not renouncing their Jewish faith (apostasy). They were rejecting that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in their Jewish teachings.
So again, please explain how Jews are apostate?

 

[lax16]

You need to read people’s posts more carefully. I didn’t say all of it was easy to understand. I said some parts are easy to understand, such as the part I had quoted.

True - I will work on that!

John the Revelator, also known as John the Beloved. He is the same as John Apostle.

Quoted from the New American Bible’s Introduction to The Revelation of John: The author of the book calls himself John (1,1.4.9;22,8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the Apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus…This identification, however was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebuis of Caesaria…Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological differences between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (1,4-3,22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the regin of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of Christians.

Yes.

It tells you. It was addressed to “the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (Revelation 1:11). That implies all future generations as well. The following verses also tell you who it was written to:

Revelation 2:

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; …

Revelation 3:

7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; …

“Angel” here refers the presiding elders who were in charge of the churches mentioned, thus providing further proof that mortal men can also be called angels.

also from the Intro the Book of Rev: The Apocalypse, or Rev to John, the last book of the Bible,is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism…This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the O.T…This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically…

I said Judaism is apostate. I didn’t say the OT was apostate.

But if Joseph Smith redefined (harping again I know!) angels and God of the Old Testament doesn’t that mean that somehow the OT was in error?

Jesus has already answered that question:

Matthew 15:

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

I thought everybody knew that. They have very fundamental differences over who Jesus Christ is, and how the nature of God is to be understood—i.e. the Trinity versus monotheism.

Because you are failing to understand that Judaism and Christianity have very fundamental theological differences between them, similar to the kind you have noticed between them and Mormonism.

Because you are already looking at Mormonism, but looking at it from the skewed eyes of ignoring the fundamental differences that already exists between Christianity and Judaism. You need to sort that one out first, before your examination of Mormonism can be more meaningful one.

There is no Christianity without Judaism. Jesus, Mary and Joseph were observant Jews. The mass is Passover with Jesus present in the Eucharist. Jesus taught in the temple with rabbis. Jesus was called Rabbi. The only difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and observant Jews of today are still waiting.
I don’t need to sort anything out. I get choked up celebrating Passover at the home of Jewish friends hearing my children read the Hebrew prayers and when they whisper in my ear “this is just like mass.” I actually cry on Palm Sunday when the choir plays Middle Eastern-type music outside the church while we parishioners carry palms into the church knowing that soon our celebration is about to turn to cries of “Crucify Him!” I ABSOLUTELY feel the Jewishness of my Christianity because it is unavoidable. That is how I have come to know the Lord better, in His humanity. I am so moved at Bar Mitzvahs because I am wondering what type of rituals/celebrations did Jesus participate in as a boy? I think you get the idea that I fully accept Jesus at the Messiah which makes me a Christian, but I also long for the Jewishness of His life because I want to get to know Him better, pre-crucifixion, as well.

Have you tried telling a Jew that?

Yes, actually. However, I think I’ll leave it to Messianic Jews like Roy Schoeman to continue to write books, Rosalind Moss to host radio talk shows…

 

[zerinus]

Yes, actually. However, I think I’ll leave it to Messianic Jews like Roy Schoeman to continue to write books, Rosalind Moss to host radio talk shows…

Well, if you have sentimental attachments to Judaism for whatever reason, that is alright by me; and Mormonism wouldn’t have any problems with it either. On the contrary, if you read the Book of Mormon you will find that one of the major themes of the book is the restoration of the Jews or the house of Israel in the last days. Indeed, the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is declared to be to help bring about that restoration. But that is a different thing form acknowledging that very real fundamental theological differences exist between Judaism and Christianity as they are practiced at the present day. No sincere Jew or Christian would refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[lax16]

Well, if you have sentimental attachments to Judaism for whatever reason, that is alright by me; and Mormonism wouldn’t have any problems with it either. On the contrary, if you read the Book of Mormon you will find that one of the major themes of the book is the restoration of the Jews or the house of Israel in the last days. Indeed, the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is declared to be to help bring about that restoration. But that is a different thing form acknowledging that very real fundamental theological differences exist between Judaism and Christianity as they are practiced at the present day. No sincere Jew or Christian would refuse to acknowledge that.

I have tried reading the Book of Mormon but can’t get past the intro and my questions were never answered.

The Jews and Christians are perfectly aware of their similarities and differences and have been discussing it for thousands of years. Again you say “very real fundamental dlifferences exist between Judaism and Christianity.” Please explain and give examples. (and don’t say that Jews don’t accept Jesus as Messiah, because we all know that difference).

btw - it is way more than a sentimental attachment…

 

[dianaiad]

Good to see you care more about the nature of the source i provided and didn’t bother to read it and analyze the argument Thomas Aquinas presented.

Roll your eyes all you want to, my friend…but you wrote “OK, we’re gonna settle this problem here and now.” I got the very understandable impression, from that, that you were using Thomas Aquinus as the “go to” final authority on this issue–rather as if he were writing scripture with which we MUST NOT disagree. In fact, you are using the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, which I have been told on this forum more than once is not the updated version. In fact, it is, evidently, a century or so old and some things have changed in it–some rather important things. I have been slapped down rather harshly for using it to ‘prove’ that Catholics believe this thing or that thing. If this is a source that is problematic for ME to use in terms of Catholic belief, then why on earth do you expect it to ‘settle here and nowl’ something I have to believe?

True, Thomas Aquinus makes an argument here,…downright Socratic in nature…that does not depend a whole lot upon scriptural sources. In fact, the man quotes scripture a total of–once. He quotes Aristotle and Dionysis a lot more often. Indeed, the objections he answers are a LOT more likely to quote scripture!

I actually like Thomas Aquinus…he is a marvelous source of information about Catholic thought. However, bless you, referring to him, especially with this particular writing, as the ultimate authority on angels is, well…

Mormons do not get their doctrine from the Catholic Encyclopedia…OR Thomas Aquinus, as brilliant as the man was. His stuff isn’t scripture, and I was simply letting you know that a man who got most of his ideas from Aristotle might not be the best primary source for “settl[ing], here and now…” something for MORMONS.

Which, by the way, is why I said that your source might settle this matter for Catholics once and for all, but, well…

Mormons really don’t look to Thomas Aquinus as a primary source of what WE must accept or believe. I’m just sayin’, y’know?

Diana

 

[zerinus]

I have tried reading the Book of Mormon but can’t get past the intro and my questions were never answered.

What questions?

The Jews and Christians are perfectly aware of their similarities and differences and have been discussing it for thousands of years. Again you say “very real fundamental dlifferences exist between Judaism and Christianity.” Please explain and give examples. (and don’t say that Jews don’t accept Jesus as Messiah, because we all know that difference).

That means everything! That is like saying, “Don’t tell me there are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists—except that Christians believe in God and atheists don’t, and everybody knows that”! That difference means that they don’t understand the Bible the same. It means that they don’t accept the New Testament as scripture, and they interpret the Old Testament differently. It also means that they understand the nature of God differently. They don’t accept the idea of the Trinity for example, which they see as polytheism in disguise. How can there be more fundamental differences than that? In Christianity belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is everything. Without Christ there is no Christianity at all! The Jewish understanding of the nature of God is closer to Islam than to Christianity. How can there be a more fundamental theological difference between two religions than the way each understands and worships God?

btw - it is way more than a sentimental attachment…

Maybe I was wrong; but I got the impression that you are not Jewish, but your in-laws are, and you respect their beliefs. Was that wrong?

 

[lax16]

What questions?

On the thread Re: Mormons; When & Why did Jesus come to America post #22

That means everything! That is like saying, “Don’t tell me there are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists—except that Christians believe in God and atheists don’t, and everybody knows that”! That difference means that they don’t understand the Bible the same. It means that they don’t accept the New Testament as scripture, and they interpret the Old Testament differently. It also means that they understand the nature of God differently. They don’t accept the idea of the Trinity for example, which they see as polytheism in disguise. How can there be more fundamental differences than that? In Christianity belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is everything. Without Christ there is no Christianity at all! The Jewish understanding of the nature of God is closer to Islam than to Christianity. How can there be a more fundamental theological difference between two religions than the way each understands and worships God?

zerinus, we will not agree on this. You are looking at everything backwards and calling it apostate. I can look backwards and see that Judaism is not wrong, only that they didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah and that those who rejected Him are wrong or misguided. Even if I use your logic (by comparing Christians to atheists) then it would have to be that God did not reveal to the Jews the coming of a Messiah. But he did. Some rejected Him. Judaism is still intact, just not fulfilled.
I am not going to argue this again, as it has already been done on another thread. They don’t accept the concept of the trinity because they don’t think it has happened yet.

Did I say that one can be Christian without a belief in Jesus Christ?

Please explain how you believe the Jewish understanding of the nature of God is closer to Islam than to Christianity? Is this an LDS teaching?

Maybe I was wrong; but I got the impression that you are not Jewish, but your in-laws are, and you respect their beliefs. Was that wrong?

No, you are right. I am not Jewish. It’s not only about respecting the beliefs of others (as some form of a courtesy), but it’s about respecting the religion of Jesus Christ and recognizing the Jews as God’s chosen people.

Do the LDS believe that the Jews are God’s chosen people?

 

[zerinus]

Do the LDS believe that the Jews are God’s chosen people?

Yes; and so are faithful Christians.

 

[lax16]

zerinus -
I think when I answer your posts my answers are a bit hard to see. I think you are only seeing the bottom portion of my answers.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus -
I think when I answer your posts my answers are a bit hard to see. I think you are only seeing the bottom portion of my answers.

Yes, you need to format your posts properly.

On the thread Re: Mormons; When & Why did Jesus come to America post #22

Okay, when I get a chance I will have another look, and maybe answer some of your questions.

zerinus, we will not agree on this. You are looking at everything backwards and calling it apostate. I can look backwards and see that Judaism is not wrong, only that they didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah and that those who rejected Him are wrong or misguided. Even if I use your logic (by comparing Christians to atheists) then it would have to be that God did not reveal to the Jews the coming of a Messiah. But he did. Some rejected Him. Judaism is still intact, just not fulfilled.

I think we are arguing over semantics here. We call the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews apostasy. If you want to invent a different name for it I suppose you can.

I am not going to argue this again, as it has already been done on another thread. They don’t accept the concept of the trinity because they don’t think it has happened yet.

I don’t understand that. They believe that the Trinity doctrine is wrong, period.

Did I say that one can be Christian without a belief in Jesus Christ?

No, but you are suggesting that the difference is not all that great, which it is.

Please explain how you believe the Jewish understanding of the nature of God is closer to Islam than to Christianity?

Because they believe in a strict monotheism, as the Muslims do. Trinitarianism is contrary to that.

Is this an LDS teaching?

It is my teaching!

 

[lax16]

zerinus - this has gone completely off-topic, but I will reply to your posts with the following excerpt from Roy Schoeman’s article “Was it Really Odd of God To Choose the Jews?”
from HebrewCatholic.org

So what were the Jews chosen for? To be a home to the Messiah when He came, which meant to be sufficiently indoctrinated in theology and to have a sufficient relationship to God to recognize His import when He came. To be sufficiently pure and free from the influence of pagan gods, who are in reality demons, and sexual immorality to be able, without sacrilege, to provide the flesh for His incarnation and the home for Him when He came. To expect Him, long for Him, and pray and sacrifice to bring about His coming, since for some mysterious reason God wants His graces to mankind to come about through the intermediation of man’s prayer and sacrifice. Then when He came, to make up His apostles and disciples: adoring, worshiping, and serving Him on earth and spreading the “good news” after His death. It was, without a doubt the most important special role ever given to any people, and ethnos on Earth, from creation to the end of time.

It’s a shame they blew it, right? After all, most didn’t recognize him; many thought he was crazy or an imposter, many treated him with scorn and abuse, and He was condemned to death amidst the cries of a crowd of Jews yelling “Crucify him!”, and after His death they did everything they could to wipe out His new religion.

But wait a moment * did the Jews blow it? Or did they succeed * perfectly, in fact. What were they asked to do? To bring about the coming of the Messiah, to enable Him to fulfill His mission, and to spread the Gospel after His death. What did they do? They brought about the coming of the Messiah, they enabled Him to fulfill His mission (tragically involving His crucifixion, but there was hardly going to be mission accomplished without that, would there?), and they spread the Gospel throughout the world after His death. For it was spread throughout the world, and the first generation of disciples and apostles were almost entirely Jews.
But there is, simultaneously, another side to this mystery, best brought out by St. Paul. Although Jesus longed for the Jews to love Him and follow Him, it was mysteriously, at the same time, a part of God’s plan that many should not. Romans 11 (extracts) says:

“… Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.’”

҃let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever.Ӄ

“Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in…”

So it was God Himself who “darkened” the eyes of the Jews, that they might not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. For some mysterious reason, the Jews had to reject Jesus in order for Christianity to spread to the Gentiles; only after it has spread throughout the entire Gentile world, and “the number of the Gentiles is fulfilled”, will it be safe for the Jews, en masse, to enter the Church. The unbelief of the Jews is somehow an integral part of God’s plan to enable the Gentiles to be saved, but when the “full number” of the Gentiles has come in * presumably at the end of this age of salvation history, at the “end of time” * the “hardening” resulting in the Jews’ unbelief will be removed and “all Israel will be saved.”