What is the Catholic view of Judaism?

[kildare]

The thing is, however, that demanding that “we should accept or reject the face value of the NT” because you consider no other interpretation as being valid is something you are welcome to demand but that’s not something others have to go along with.

???
My point was about the historic existance of the NT characters. I didn’t say anything about it’s interpretation.
Of course your welcome to your view but isn’t there a big difference between the view that “Jesus body was stolen by his followers” as Josephus wrote that some Jews claimed, to the one that Jesus never even existed and deserves the same respect as Adam or even Apollo?
And neither of them follow the NT interpretation.

I suppose I am finding it hard to understand why anyone would chose the latter. It seems to me something akin to refusal to accept evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence. So

 

[Kaninchen]

???
My point was about the historic existance of the NT characters. I didn’t say anything about it’s interpretation.
Of course your welcome to your view but isn’t there a big difference between the view that “Jesus body was stolen by his followers” as Josephus wrote that some Jews claimed, to the one that Jesus never even existed and deserves the same respect as Adam or even Apollo.
And neither of them follow the NT interpretation.

I suppose I am finding it hard to understand why anyone would chose the latter. It seems to me something akin to refusal to accept evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence. So

Was there a rabbi (teacher) called Jesus? I think denying it is an interesting game for some but not a terribly important game and certainly not a very fruitful one. I’m sure he existed, beyond that it’s all a woven web of guesses.

 

[kildare]

Well I´m happy if the non-christain world accept that there was a rabbi name Jesus who was proclaimed as the messiah -Son of God and reportedly did many miracles… I think thats a fair fact, in fact reasonably factual by ancient history standards

The Christians accept the claims, while the obviously non-Christians do not -they think it was all made up or the events were completely exaggerated by St. Paul and a few others!

I think theres a fine line between reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. I think unreasonable faith would be to believe in something which has absoluetly no evidence. I think the Gospels are a kind of evidence, and I think an important part of Catholicism (something which distinguishes it from fundamentalist protestantism) is that its faith is entirely reasonable (in this case based on various reports/gospels). That said we have to accept that modern unbelief is reasonable too.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well I´m happy if the non-christain world accept that there was a rabbi name Jesus who was proclaimed as the messiah -Son of God and reportedly did many miracles… I think thats a fair fact, in fact reasonably factual by ancient history standards

I’m sure that it would make you happy, but holding your breath in anticipation would not be recommended.

 

[waxwing]

Hope this isn’t off topic, but I know people that have started attending a Messianic Jewish Service, I don’t know much about them and after doing a brief search looks like a Protestant Denomination that embraces and celebrates its Jewish heritage with both Jew and Gentile folks attending. Anyone Jewish or otherwise have any info of them, how Judaism and Catholism view this group?

 

[kildare]

Hope this isn’t off topic, but I know people that have started attending a Messianic Jewish Service, I don’t know much about them and after doing a brief search looks like a Protestant Denomination that embraces and celebrates its Jewish heritage with both Jew and Gentile folks attending. Anyone Jewish or otherwise have any info of them, how Judaism and Catholism view this group?

This would “Jews for Jesus” or something along those lines? Wasn’t Bob Dylan briefly involved in the late 70s?

 

[kildare]

I’m sure that it would make you happy, but holding your breath in anticipation would not be recommended.

We are always grateful for any little bits of charity, don’t you know

 

[swariffin]

Was there a rabbi (teacher) called Jesus? I think denying it is an interesting game for some but not a terribly important game and certainly not a very fruitful one. I’m sure he existed, beyond that it’s all a woven web of guesses.

It is interesting if you believe that Jesus is historically exist. Do you believe that Jesus was a Rabbi?

 

[Kaninchen]

It is interesting if you believe that Jesus is historically exist. Do you believe that Jesus was a Rabbi?

Just a word for ‘teacher’ in this kind of context.

 

[swariffin]

Just a word for ‘teacher’ in this kind of context.

Do you believe that Jesus was a teacher? Do you believe what he was teaching? Well, perhaps believe is strong word. If I rephrase my question, do you have any objection to what Jesus was teaching? Which one?

 

[copperblade]

Greetings everyone! My name is Juan Arguelles. I come from a very traditional Catholic heritage. Though my parents are somewhat conservative Christians. For many generations my ancestors have been Catholic. So, I know a lot about the Christian faith and doctrines. For awhile I felt Judaism is the answer for my spirit. I decided to follow my gut and become a Noahide (gentile who follows the Seven laws of Noah) where I would then soon and hopefully become a Orthodox Jew. Judaism makes more sense to me then Christianity and Islam. The only thing I see worth saving from Christianity is my Catholic heritage. Which goes back many, many generations. What are your views on Judaism? Anything you feel that is controversial?

I think today’s Judaism shares a history with Catholicism and all Christianity that has greatly diverged in some areas. Early Christianity was simply another Jewish sect of people who followed Jesus as the promised Messiah. This sect removed the differentiation from gentiles in so far that it focused on a new covenant with God. It also came to reinterpret the old covenant as a preparation for the new covenant in many ways, and re-evaluated the terms of what was expected from the promised Messiah. Due to a new covenant, I think the beliefs of the Christian sect diverged faster.

On the other hand, the current state of Judaism has also been developed from the same time period, particularly from the Pharisees. The biggest defining factor for the development for Judaism today is the Talmud.

So basically I see it this way:

Catholicism = 1st century Judaism + Jesus’ teachings + greek philosophy + openness to non-jews/moving to the Edomites (Rome) + centuries of development

Judaism = 1st century Judaism + Pharisees interpretations/philosophy + Talmud + centuries of development

It makes sense that there is some commonality due to heritage, but that there should also be a lot of differences.

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you believe that Jesus was a teacher? Do you believe what he was teaching? Well, perhaps believe is strong word. If I rephrase my question, do you have any objection to what Jesus was teaching? Which one?

I really don’t want to get into another “déjà vu, all over again” conversation.

 

[swariffin]

I really don’t want to get into another “déjà vu, all over again” conversation.

I apologize. I have no intention to challenge your belief, anyway. What I am doing, is just asking to see what modern Judaism way of thinking, based on conversation with modern Jewish. Searching from written sources seems generate static opinion, I think. While I know about Jewish, is that you really have a dynamic culture and dynamic way of thinking. Thanks to know you, anyway.

 

[rinnie]

Was there a rabbi (teacher) called Jesus? I think denying it is an interesting game for some but not a terribly important game and certainly not a very fruitful one. I’m sure he existed, beyond that it’s all a woven web of guesses.

Hi Kaninchen, I have 2 things to ask you. First of all you agree that Jesus did indeed exist. Okay now do you feel we have enough facts to believe that he exists or do you feel it is only by your faith (because of course we only both know what we were taught) that Jesus did indeed exist.

Now with that aside next question. You told me something I never knew. You said earlier I believe, that you only accept the first is it 4 books in the N.T? Now has this always been with the Jewish faith. And you are correct I always thought we had the entire O.T in common.

 

[rinnie]

You simply don’t comprehend the difference between fact and opinion. The fact that none of this was recorded until several years after Christ’s death suggests to nonbelievers that parts of it are fictional. You can not prove they are not. So, it’s not fact. You can site the testimony of witnesses all you want to and I’m inclined to agree that they’re compelling arguments and they are in fact why I believe (among other reasons)… but they still can’t be proven to be factual. You and I accept them as factual because of our faith… but they can not be proven as such.

However, I can see that you’ve taken the strength in your belief to the dangerous point of refusing to acknowledge other beliefs as plausible because you would have to concede that you might be wrong (which is simply a matter of pride) so we can just agree to disagree. I won’t debate with someone who refuses to accept the fact that they might be wrong.

Thats okay. I see we cannot see eye to eye on this it happens sometime.

I just believe that here is enough recorded history to make scripture a true fact is all. I do not think it has anything to do with faith.

Because many People believe that Jesus walked here on this earth and was crucified but deny that he rose again and was indeed the Son of God. But they still believe that he did indeed exist.

If believing in the existance of Christ only meant you had to have faith why did the pharisees deny him as the Son of God. But accept him as a great teacher.

The Pharisees were one of the 3 societies of Judasim in the time of the N.T. Is this not indeed part of History?

Is God himself not a part of History? Do you see why we cannot agree on this? I never said that you had to believe that Christ was the Son of God because it was written. If that was all it took everyone would believe. I agree faith moves on this issue. I am just saying that his existance was written in History. And the O.T and the N.T rather you accept it or not is a part of history.

And that is why I used the President for my theory. You had the first and you can go to date with the Last. Just like when Christ founded his Church you have the First Pope and the Present Pope of today. Rather you accept them or not you have History that they Existed from the time of Christ. That does not take faith to believe.

You can deny Christ as the Son of God but from History he did indeed exist. If you want to deny this proof in the CC Judasim can back up his existance is all I am saying.

Unless of course I am wrong about the Jewish faith thats why I am asking K.

 

[rinnie]

Oh I understand that, I always have. The only thing we have in common is God. The God of Abraham I totally understand that. And I can have much respect for Kaninchen and love her for what we have in common.

But what I am saying is I believe that although she does not Accept Christ as the Son of God she does accept that he existed that’s my only point.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hi Kaninchen, I have 2 things to ask you. First of all you agree that Jesus did indeed exist. Okay now do you feel we have enough facts to believe that he exists or do you feel it is only by your faith (because of course we only both know what we were taught) that Jesus did indeed exist.

Now with that aside next question. You told me something I never knew. You said earlier I believe, that you only accept the first is it 4 books in the N.T? Now has this always been with the Jewish faith. And you are correct I always thought we had the entire O.T in common.

I think you’re trying to weave something out of nothing from what I’ve said and getting not a little confused in the process.

I don’t accept the NT at all, rinnie (that is not to say that, if the NT mentions some historical figure, I don’t believe they existed at all). Judaism has never accepted “the first four books of the NT” and I can’t understand where on earth you’ve gotten that idea from.

 

[rinnie]

I think you’re trying to weave something out of nothing from what I’ve said and getting not a little confused in the process.

I don’t accept the NT at all, rinnie (that is not to say that, if the NT mentions some historical figure, I don’t believe they existed at all). Judaism has never accepted “the first four books of the NT” and I can’t understand where on earth you’ve gotten that idea from.

My Bad, I am sorry K I meant to say the O.T. not the New. Sorry my mistake. So my question is the first 4 books of the Old not the New. Sorry.

 

[Kaninchen]

My Bad, I am sorry K I meant to say the O.T. not the New. Sorry my mistake. So my question is the first 4 books of the Old not the New. Sorry.

The Tanakh (the equivalent of your ‘Old Testament’) consists of the five books of the Law (Torah), the Prophets and the Writings. Torah is central to Judaism - the rest, as I’ve said elsewhere, is commentary (along with what is known as ‘Oral Torah’, the ancient commentaries and arguments).

The whole focus of Judaism is Torah, about how to live ‘ethical monotheism’.

They’re two very different religions, rinnie, with different concepts and different foci. Ideas that are central to one can be meaningless to the other. We may share some scriptures but we ‘use’ them differently.

 

[rinnie]

The Tanakh (the equivalent of your ‘Old Testament’) consists of the five books of the Law (Torah), the Prophets and the Writings. Torah is central to Judaism - the rest, as I’ve said elsewhere, is commentary (along with what is known as ‘Oral Torah’, the ancient commentaries and arguments).

The whole focus of Judaism is Torah, about how to live ‘ethical monotheism’.

They’re two very different religions, rinnie, with different concepts and different foci. Ideas that are central to one can be meaningless to the other. We may share some scriptures but we ‘use’ them differently.

Okay now I totally understand that we see the scripture differently. That is not my argument. I mean if we saw them the same we would be the same faith

Now lets go somewhere else for a moment. Do you feel the Torah can be proved through History or can only be proved by faith?

Now we do agree that we share these scriptures which are MY point. Now interpretation is again something completely different. But to say that we do accept certain scripture as the word of God would not be wrong, Correct?