Three Questions for Catholic Apologists

[Cranch]

Some of this has been covered, but it took me a while to write it, so I’m posting it anyway!

I’d like to know how Catholic apologists would handle these three questions:

The story of the conception of Samson in Judges 13:2-onward is remarkably similar to the story in the NT of the conception of Jesus. This is also the most likely source of the nazarite/Nazarene confusion that occurs in Matthew 2:23, in the NT. It is my belief that the early Christians copied this story and applied it (slightly modified) to Jesus. What do you think of the remarkable similarities?

This similarity is no accident. Neither is it contrived by men. The story of Samson is meant by God to prefigure Christ, just as the Church teaches much of the Old Testament points to Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise to His people.“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.”

– Luke 24:27
​

As has already been pointed out, there is no reference in Judges to Manue’s wife being a virgin. In fact she is known to be barren. In this way, the story is more similar to that of Abraham and Sara (“Is there any thing hard to God?”) than to Mary and Joseph. By the way, I love your use of “slightly modified.” The Son of God is a slight modification from the son of Manue !

In Luke 4, Jesus is reported to have attended synagogue and been called to read from a section of Isaiah (Luke 4: 16-21).

Now in Orthodox Judaism, the practice has always been that on certain Sabbaths and holydays, a certain Torah (Law) portion is read, and then the Haftorah (which is a section of the Prophetical writings.) There are specific Torah portions and specific Prophetical portions to be read for each specific Sabbath/holyday. This has not changed in several thousand years.

Yet, when I looked up the portion of Isaiah which Jesus is supposed to have read, I find that it is not a portion for any Sabbath or holyday! Why do you think this is?

“And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto him. And as he unfolded the book, he found the place where it was written……” If what you say about the passage from Isaiah is true, He simply bypassed (no doubt with authority!) the prescribed reading. Perhaps this unusual behavior is why we read in Luke “when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.”

And finally, in the NT Jesus says many very profound things, and in one portion of the NT, it says, “He spoke with authority, not like one of the scribes” (Mk 1:22). Because he did not properly attribute his words to the rabbis he heard/learned them from (as they are recorded in the Talmud), he led others to think they were his own sayings when they were not (I have seen many examples of things Jesus said, in their original form, by the original authors, in the Mishnah, which is part of the Talmud, a body of Jewish rabbinical teachings which predate Jesus.)

If you pick up a volume of the Talmud, you will often see things such as, “Rabbi Bar Chanina said in the name of Rav Huna”, and so on. This is because in Judaism, it is considered stealing (plagiarism) to repeat what a teacher taught without giving proper credit. Yet Jesus did this, leading others to believe they were his original sayings when often, they were not.

How therefore, can Christians claim “Jesus kept the Law perfectly” when he clearly violated the command against theft?

As you later touched on, rabbinical teaching was exclusively oral until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. And this (post-Christian) event supposedly triggered an increase in legal discourse. The written Mishna was not compiled until 200 A.D. The other part of the Talmud is the Gemara which is made up of commentary on the Mishna. Later and later! Now I see you claim Jesus is supposedly “borrowing” from Kabbalists. I’m sure you will claim this “knowledge” dates from the time of Adam, even though the authoritative text comes from the Middle Ages.

Leaving aside Kabbalah, does the teacher cite his own work? He “spoke with authority” because He is God, one with the Father, and the author of that which the Rabbis merely commented upon. It is written of the twelve-year-old Jesus:And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business?
Nevertheless, Jesus sometimes cited Scripture to emphasize a point or link the passage to Himself:

Mat 21:13 - And he saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.

Mat 26:24 - The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.

Mat 26:31 - Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.

Mark 7:6 - But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

 

[ricmat]

As for the difference between harvesting and plucking, In Matt 23:1-3, Jesus himself says that the Pharisees have authority from Moses, and that therefore, Jesus’ followers are to do everything they say.

He goes on to claim they are hypocrites, yet he still says in Mt 23:1-3 that Christians are to do everything the Pharisees command, because “they have authority from Moses”.

So, if the Pharisees did add to the Law, Jesus himself says they had the right to do it!

Yes, the Scribes and Pharisees had the right to do it. As did Moses when he allowed a bill of divorce. In that case he said that Moses (not God) wrote this law, because of the hardness of hearts of the people. But still Jesus, said that “that’s not the way it was meant to be in the beginning…”

In Matt 23:1-3 Jesus is not talking to Christians per-se, but to the Jews. And he is specifically targeting the hypocrisies of the Pharisees. He’s saying to the people to do what they (the Pharisees) say, not what they do. That means no plucking or harvesting on the Sabbath (for the people). But of course, this restriction still does not apply to God.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Now in Orthodox Judaism, the practice has always been that on certain Sabbaths and holydays, a certain Torah (Law) portion is read, and then the Haftorah (which is a section of the Prophetical writings.) There are specific Torah portions and specific Prophetical portions to be read for each specific Sabbath/holyday. This has not changed in several thousand years.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect on a number of points here. Please forgive the rest of my post for being rather technical.

First, there was no division into Orthodox Judaism and “non-Orthodox Judaism” during the second temple period. The Reform movement properly traces its origins to the haskalah (Jewish enlightenment) in the 18th century.

Second, you are incorrect that the parshos (Pentateuch portions) of the week have not changed in the “last several thousand years.” Indeed, as late as the writing of the Bavli Gemara (the Aramaic portion of the Babylonian Talmud) (e.g., b. Megilla 29b), there is reference to a triennial cycle in among the Palestinian Jews (which, of course, Jesus was). No one knows the origin of the *haftorah (Prophet and Writing lectionary) readings; but to suggest that they were standardized as of the Second Temple period is not correct. Indeed, they are not standardized now; there exist various different minhagim (customs) for the haftorah among the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. Indeed, even smaller subgroups, such as the Lubavitchers (a Hassidic group) have special minhagim *for haftorah readings.

Third, you will find further confirmation of the wide variety of parshos divisions from reading Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (codification of Talmudic law) Hilchos Tefillah (Laws of Prayer) 13:1.

Fourth, it is not correct to suggest the *haftorah *has been static. For example, the Jewish holidayof Tisha b’Av (the 9th day of the month of Av) commemorates the destruction of the Temples (there is a Talmudic *aggada *[legend] that they were destroyed on the same day.) However, the establishment of the haftorah of Tisha b’Av postdates Yehuda ha-Nasi (the redactor of the Hebrew portion of the Talmud, called the Mishnah) (b. Megilla 5b). However, Yehuda ha-Nasi wasn’t even born until 135 AD.

The evidence of Jewish customs of the second Temple period strongly supports the accuracy of the New Testament account.

 

[HashemEchad]

Yes, the Scribes and Pharisees had the right to do it. As did Moses when he allowed a bill of divorce. In that case he said that Moses (not God) wrote this law, because of the hardness of hearts of the people. But still Jesus, said that “that’s not the way it was meant to be in the beginning…”

In Matt 23:1-3 Jesus is not talking to Christians per-se, but to the Jews. And he is specifically targeting the hypocrisies of the Pharisees. He’s saying to the people to do what they (the Pharisees) say, not what they do. That means no plucking or harvesting on the Sabbath (for the people). But of course, this restriction still does not apply to God.

All of this presupposes the idea that Jesus is divine. A belief only Christians hold.

 

[ricmat]

All of this presupposes the idea that Jesus is divine. A belief only Christians hold.

Of course.

But it is all part of what turns out to be a very cohesive story.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

All of this presupposes the idea that Jesus is divine. A belief only Christians hold.

That is probably not correct. Because the Romans regularly had a pantheon and demigods, it would be consistent for many of Jesus’ own day who were not his followers to think he were a god merely by the miracles he performed. Simon magus being a prime example of the type.

Even so, the fact is that Plagarism was not a law of the time. Nor – even granting it to still be “wrong” somehow – have you any credible evidence that these sayings did exist before Christ – for your own “rabbis” could have plagarized as well and credited someone with the invention to hide the crime. Quote an enemy of the Jewish people who attribute these sayings before christ to the Jewish people … as Christians do for much of the historical evidence for christianity which includes the condemnation by the Romans which bear witness to the historicity of Jesus’ life.

If you can’t do that – I can only say your evidence is shallow. But, even should it be true – there are alternate “explanations” than to the “honesty” of the talmudic Rabbis. For example, a person who teaches with authority HAS it – but someone who can’t defend their point will cite another so as not to bear the blame should it become unpopular – like a coward.

Why, in a society which plagarism is not a crime, should anyone be so careful to give credit? Where in the Talmud does anyone say that copying their sayings without credit is a crime? where in the Law? Stealing is only possible if a person owns something – BUT if there is no ABSOLUTE right of ownership, taking the item is not stealing anyway. eg: Immanent domain laws in the U.S. – the states and cities bear no responsibility to “credit” the original owner for “donating” their property – even though it was without consent that the land is usually taken.

 

[Swan]

Deuteronomy 23:25 differentiates between plucking and harvesting. But the Pharisees extended the prohibition to include doing both on the sabbath.

Or so says the notes in my Ignatius Study Bible - Gospel of Matthew.

One of Jesus’ main messages was that the Pharisees added a lot of unnecessary burden to their followers (which they didn’t practice themselves), and got so wrapped up in the letter of the law that they missed the spirit of the law.

Interestingly, this is my very problem with Christian demoniations. They seemed to go out of their way to come up with complex laws that the people couldn’t understand - I think th RCC is the worst on this which is why I left. The letter of the law seems to be much more important than the spirit (as is evidenced on these forums).

Also, Jesus openly questioned authority yet most Catholics (actually most Christians) seem to have a real problem with that assertion because it seems to suggest that questioning religious authority can be a good thing (I agree with this). I say a shirt that said “Question Authority, Jesus did”. Yet the answer is always, because the church says so!

 

[NotWorthy]

I can give you one example just off the top of my head.

Jesus said the entire Law is summed up in two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

But this is a well-known teaching from Judaism, as found in the Mishnah. Why did he not give proper credit, and made it seem as though it was his original thought?

In my opinion, he didn’t make this sound as “an original thougth”. He sounded like he was repeating a commonly-held belief of the time, for it was.

The Jewish Tradition was that the “Love of God” Commandments were all on one of the tablets, while the “Love of Neighbor” Commandments were all on the second tablet.

 

[NotWorthy]

All of this presupposes the idea that Jesus is divine. A belief only Christians hold.

That is funny, and very deep theologically.

To believe that Jesus is Divine makes one a Christian. To disbelieve this makes one not a Christian.

So it would be concluded that only Christians would believe that Jesus is divine.

BTW, have you ever noticed that the Pharisees don’t “give credit where credit is due” in their part of the Gospel. Maybe the authors of the NT didn’t feel this was an inherent part of the Scripture Story.

 

[ricmat]

Interestingly, this is my very problem with Christian demoniations. They seemed to go out of their way to come up with complex laws that the people couldn’t understand - I think th RCC is the worst on this which is why I left. The letter of the law seems to be much more important than the spirit (as is evidenced on these forums).

Also, Jesus openly questioned authority yet most Catholics (actually most Christians) seem to have a real problem with that assertion because it seems to suggest that questioning religious authority can be a good thing (I agree with this). I say a shirt that said “Question Authority, Jesus did”. Yet the answer is always, because the church says so!

In the case of the Pharisees, in their practice of their regulations, they forgot the spirit of the law, and its original intent. Certainly there are Catholics that do the same thing. That’s not the intent of Catholicism, however. Jesus is warning us all that we must remember the spirit of the law while still following the regulations.

Jesus wasn’t “questioning” authority. He WAS authority. As God, creator of the universe and of life, creator of our immortal souls, and love itself, he left us the Church to establish disciplines and dogmas that help us to be holy. Since we need to be holy to eventually be in the presence of God, this is obviously important.

BTW - the “laws” which the “RCC came up with” are really just an elaboration of the 10 commandments, and the Beatitudes. There are many optional “disciplines” which the Church offers to help us to overcome temptation to do wrong, and to demonstrate a penitent mindset (poor choice of words, but I can’t think of anything better right now).

You might want to start a separate thread on this (if you haven’t already). There are many folks here who can answer your questions better than I can.

 

[Spirithound]

Interestingly, this is my very problem with Christian denominations. They seemed to go out of their way to come up with complex laws that the people couldn’t understand - I think th RCC is the worst on this which is why I left. The letter of the law seems to be much more important than the spirit (as is evidenced on these forums).

Also, Jesus openly questioned authority yet most Catholics (actually most Christians) seem to have a real problem with that assertion because it seems to suggest that questioning religious authority can be a good thing (I agree with this). I say a shirt that said “Question Authority, Jesus did”. Yet the answer is always, because the church says so!

Complex laws? Be baptized. Confess your sins. Don’t fornicate or use contraception, except…ever! What complex laws are you thinking of?
And Jesus didn’t question authority. He questioned those whose authority was quite paltry in comparison with His own. Remember His words in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Father let this cup pass, but not my will but yours be done.” Seems like Jesus obeyed real authority.

 

[Spirithound]

Are you saying that God is the original source for the Kabbalah and the Talmud? Of course Jews believe that, but what you’re saying is Christians also believe it?

At the least, those portions that Jesus quoted must have been

All of this presupposes the idea that Jesus is divine. A belief only Christians hold.

Are you dismissing our logic because it gives a conclusion that you don’t like?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No Catholic apologist takers?

You have posted Apologetics questions in the sub-forum for Sacred Scripture…if it were posted in the Apologetics forum, you’d get a better response.

 

[guanophore]

I’ll do that. I actually wrote an article a while back, a compilation of statements I found by Jesus in the NT that had parallels in the Jewish writings.

I’ll dig out the article over the weekend and see if I can post it here.

Thanks I would enjoy that too.

I can give you one example just off the top of my head.

Jesus said the entire Law is summed up in two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

But this is a well-known teaching from Judaism, as found in the Mishnah. Why did he not give proper credit, and made it seem as though it was his original thought?

Catholics believe that Jesus is God, as the opening lines of the Gospel of John state, He is from the beginning, and is Himself the eternal Word. Any inspired writings or sayings do not belong to the one who writes them, but emanate from the One who inspired them. As He is the author, it was not necessary to cite His sources.

 

[guanophore]

In Luke 4, Jesus is reported to have attended synagogue and been called to read from a section of Isaiah (Luke 4: 16-21).

Now in Orthodox Judaism, the practice has always been that on certain Sabbaths and holydays, a certain Torah (Law) portion is read, and then the Haftorah (which is a section of the Prophetical writings.) There are specific Torah portions and specific Prophetical portions to be read for each specific Sabbath/holyday. This has not changed in several thousand years.

Yet, when I looked up the portion of Isaiah which Jesus is supposed to have read, I find that it is not a portion for any Sabbath or holyday! Why do you think this is?

I am not an apologist, and only have superficial acquaintance wit the synagogue service. However, when I have been to synagogue, a helper brings the scroll, lays it down, helps to find the spot, then points to it with an object. I do not know the names and roles of all these things but I imagine that Jesus spurned the chosen passage, and rolled the scroll until He found the section He wanted. He was initiating a new feast that day, the proclaimation of the Kingdom. The words He read were about Himself, and disrupting the liturgical assignment was one sure way to cause a stir over what He had to say.

 

[HashemEchad]

At the least, those portions that Jesus quoted must have been

Are you dismissing our logic because it gives a conclusion that you don’t like?

No, I’m just pointing out the fact that your reply would only make sense to someone who DOES believe Jesus was divine.

 

[HashemEchad]

I am not an apologist, and only have superficial acquaintance wit the synagogue service. However, when I have been to synagogue, a helper brings the scroll, lays it down, helps to find the spot, then points to it with an object. I do not know the names and roles of all these things but I imagine that Jesus spurned the chosen passage, and rolled the scroll until He found the section He wanted. He was initiating a new feast that day, the proclaimation of the Kingdom. The words He read were about Himself, and disrupting the liturgical assignment was one sure way to cause a stir over what He had to say.

Actually, that possibility occurred to me too, based on the wording of the passage that speaks of this.