meltzerboy
New member
Yes, I realize that about Catholicism. I was merely responding to the previous post by the OP, which talked about salvation.
- Status
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Exactly, and the very fact that you do not recognize these things proves to us that you are a backdrop, vital to God’s plan of salvation in that, the Christ would come from you, but you are not the center of salvation. God does not regard the Jews more special than the Gentiles.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
Ah coolness
L
LethalMouse
Guest
Olive branches bro, you going to get me lumped in with the arrow crowd
chilllaxxxxx
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It’s important that the paradigmatic difference is understood though - to us, Christians and Jews share the lack of need for a ‘plan of salvation’.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Indeed. Though, the our concept of salvation sprung from Judaism not in that you have the same soteriological ideas as us, but that the concept of sin and the Messiah came from Judaism. Specifically second temple Judaism. The concept of a suffering priestly Messiah wasn’t entirely unique to Christianity. The Essenes had a concept of two Messiah’s, one priestly and the other being a king. I’m not saying the Essenes had the same soteriological concept as Christianity, but to a second temple Jew, the character of Jesus could fit the character of the Messiah. There were a wide variety of concepts of the Messiah in the second temple period. The Christian concept actually seems to be a merger of all the concepts of the Messiah in the 1st century second temple Judaism.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I wonder which one that was? We’ll never know now.
Sorry but I’m only partly joking. Of course, especially in periods of particular difficulty, it would have been possible to find groups of Jews who believed all sorts of things. One look at various threads on CAF can reveal Catholics who believe all sorts of things (‘Catholics for Pro-Choice Tantric Yoga’ or whatever) as well but we’re rapidly told that they’re outside the mainstream and main thrust of Catholic thought/traditions/etc and more than a little naughty.
Would it be possible, however, for somebody in the distant future to look back and find bits and pieces of Catholic writings to work up into a case that there were elements of ‘Pro-Choice Tantric Yoga’ in Catholicism?
Very likely.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Unlikely. The Catholic Church has never condoned abortion.I wonder which one that was? We’ll never know now.
Sorry but I’m only partly joking. Of course, especially in periods of particular difficulty, it would have been possible to find groups of Jews who believed all sorts of things. One look at various threads on CAF can reveal Catholics who believe all sorts of things (‘Catholics for Pro-Choice Tantric Yoga’ or whatever) as well but we’re rapidly told that they’re outside the mainstream and main thrust of Catholic thought/traditions/etc and more than a little naughty.
Would it be possible, however, for somebody in the distant future to look back and find bits and pieces of Catholic writings to work up into a case that there were elements of ‘Pro-Choice Tantric Yoga’ in Catholicism?
Very likely.
There was no established orthodoxy concerning the Messiah in the second temple period. The concept itself was still developing within Judaism. You can’t really compare Catholics who are pro-choice with the differing views of the Messiah in the second temple period, because the Catholic Church has an established orthodoxy on the subject.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I expect that you’ll be able to point out the verses of Leviticus where it says that while drinking blood is just too naughty for words, it’s ok if it’s the blood of a human god and the developing position on that in Second Temple Judaism. Then I’ll be able to see your version of the comparison better.
J
Jerusha
Guest
That was the clincher. Many Jews were accepting of the new sect, until they realized the meaning of the Eucharist.
J
Jerusha
Guest
The mature Christian finds grace in doing good. Scrupulosity is an excessive concern over avoiding sin; practicing good is therefore the opposite medicine to be applied. And Jesus spoke against such scrupulosity, which he saw everywhere among the Jews of his time.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, in the context of the NT narrative, of course.
The thing is that when we talk about concepts like ‘many’, we haven’t really a clue as to what that means, rather like saying that there was some kind of movement of ideas in Judaism at the time - on the basis of what? Some guys out starving themselves in the desert somewhere who left some fragment or whatever?
What the impact of Jesus was on Jews at the time? I’d suggest that we just don’t know enough to say these things with any certainty - I mean that on all sides.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Kaninchen: 
J
jlhargus
Guest
960
I disagree, I would say Catholicism is in the same faith line as Abraham, Jacob and Isacc under a New Covenant established by the Messiah. Is Judaism today not different than Abraham’s religion? Was it not different in the wilderness. Judaism today is different than it was in Christ’s time. There are no priests, no sacrifice no Temple, where God meets with His people.
Yet we see those things continued in the Catholic Church. Priests, sacrifice and the presents of God, in the Body (Temple) of Christ, the Church where He meets with His people. The Church is the regenerated Davidic Kingdom. Christ being the Son of David is King with His mother as queen mother.
[Gal3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.]
T
TheAtheist
Guest
This thread has been absolutely fascinating…
Comment from the Peanut Gallery for our Jewish friends and Christian hosts.
This concept of a Messiah - I take it this idea can be pinned down to the Second Temple Period which you have been speaking of?
I only ask because the Parsees i know back home, which i believe you would all call Zoroastrians have made an interesting claim to me in the past.
Namely that the concept of the Messiah itself, whether we speak of it in a Jewish or Christian context, comes from them.
They speak of a Saoshyant who, at least from their opinion, seems to hold many of the same type of characteristics embedded into the concept of a messiah.
The opinion holds up the idea that meltzerboy and kanninchen’s ancestors must have picked up the smatterings of the concept during the Babylonian captivity and further expanded on it after Cyrus overturned the whole ancient middle east.
Comment from the Peanut Gallery for our Jewish friends and Christian hosts.
This concept of a Messiah - I take it this idea can be pinned down to the Second Temple Period which you have been speaking of?
I only ask because the Parsees i know back home, which i believe you would all call Zoroastrians have made an interesting claim to me in the past.
Namely that the concept of the Messiah itself, whether we speak of it in a Jewish or Christian context, comes from them.
They speak of a Saoshyant who, at least from their opinion, seems to hold many of the same type of characteristics embedded into the concept of a messiah.
The opinion holds up the idea that meltzerboy and kanninchen’s ancestors must have picked up the smatterings of the concept during the Babylonian captivity and further expanded on it after Cyrus overturned the whole ancient middle east.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
It actually seems that the Jewish idea of a Messiah rose independently. There is evidence of a Messianic figure in pre-exilic times. Though, there may have been some influence from Zoroastrians later on. The main influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism was the the Zoroastrian concept of angles and demons. There is no doubt that Zoroastrianism had some influence on Judaism, particularity in how good and evil are to be viewed, but I don’t think the influence was a broad as some put it. Sometimes, coincidences happen. For example, both Zoroastrians and Jews developed a concept of the resurrection of the dead. But the Jewish concept seems to have risen independently in the Maccabean period (2nd century B.C.) Besides, Zoroastrians were monotheistic. Perhaps, in my Christian world view at least, there was some divine inspiration.
By the second temple period, there were many concepts of the Messiah. Some saw him simply a king, descendant from David who would rise and defeat the enemy’s of the Jews. Others some him simply a meek suffering priestly figure who would preach righteousness (some even believed in the coming of 2 Messiah’s). And other saw him as a very apocalyptic figure, a Son of Man, who would come to reign down God’s judgment on the earth, as is presented in the Book of Enoch. As said before, the Christian view of Jesus seems to be a combinations of all those views. With the added belief that Jesus rose from the dead. No concept of a resurrected Messiah can be found in second temple Judaism. That rose independently with Christianity.
It is indeed very fascinating. The development of the Jewish religion during the second temple period is very fascinating because it not only shows how Judaism has changed over time, but it gives us the added context behind Christianity. After all, Christianity arose within the context of late second temple Judaism.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Allow me to make a tiny correction.
At least in my neck of the woods, you guys were highly uncommon except in the State of Kerala at the tip of India…and i’ve personally never been that far down south. Actually now that I come to think about it, “you guys” might have been the Orthodox.
And I actually never met a single Jewish person until i emigrated to the states. Prior to that, i only heard them in the context of foreign news a la Israel-Palestine. Or talked about in the occasional rant i’d see coming out of Pakistan.
But the Parsees? I grew up with some of them.
In fact i probably know more about them than I know about you guys or the Jews. So here’s a little interesting tidbit to pay you back for your thoughts.Now i’m not a scholar of religion, just a guy with an interest who asks a lot of questions but…
The Old Persians and the Vedic Hindus actually share a set of deities. In fact, there’s a bit of a quirk i found.
1.) The Old Persians, according to my friends, tend to label what you or the Jews would call “demons” by a term called “daeva.” And all their good deities are called “Ahuras.”
2.) The Vedic Hindus call their beneficial gods “Devas” and call all their anti-gods “Asuras.”
The theory i often seen expounded is that at some point, a rather large tribe of human beings broke off from each other - and one set of deities (ancestors perhaps?) gets venerated but accursed by the other section of the tribe.
And this is where the Parsees tell me… “And then Zoroaster shows up.”
Or rather Zoroaster walks down a mountain and starts preaching to the Elamites, the Parsees, Parthians, Medians, etc. etc. about an uncreated god which has no correlate in the Vedic religion.
And some of his statements in their holy text seems…reminiscent in tone I guess you can say to our Jewish friends’ prophets…
But make of that what you will - i just find it to be an interesting curiosity.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Very much, indeed. As far as I know, the Catholic Church doesn’t have an official position on Zoroaster. Perhaps there was some kind of divine inspiration. We don’t know. The Magi, described in the Gospel of Matthew, were likely Zoroastrians (possibly Zoroastrian priests), and when they came to see Jesus they began to worship him.
Judaism and Christianity have always had a good relationship with Zoroastrians. It was the Zoroastrians who help liberate the Jews in their captivity! The very fact that Zoroastrians are mentioned in the New Testament, coming to see Christ, attest to that fact.
There is just so much correlations between the Judeo-Christian traditions and Zoroastrian tradition that, in my opinion, Zoroaster and his later followers may have had some divine inspiration.
Also, to note, the Bahai’s and Ahmadiyya’s (a sect of Islam) believe Zoroaster to be a prophet. These two groups are classified as Abrahamic religions.
S
steve_b
Guest
Some interesting communications from Jesus
#17
Jesus came to bring a new covenant,
and it needs considering
*
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Full Chapter ]*
One can’t escape asking, Re: the new covenant, If the old was good enough why bring in a new covenant? The answer is, the OT can’t save anyone. Heaven was closed after Adam sinned. All the sacrifices for sin in the OT didn’t forgive sins. If they did we wouldn’t need a savior to make it possible for the forgiveness of sins. We needed, we required, a savior, a new covenant from God. And He gave it in Jesus. Said another way, If the OT was good enough (which it wasn’t) then Jesus was not necessary (which He was absolutely necessary).
2 Corinthians 5:17
Historically,
Catholics in the beginning ( #34 ) were all Jewish. But whether Jew or Gentile in their history, as Catholics, they celebrated the Eucharist on Sunday ( #22 ). Jesus said the first mass on Sunday (the Lord’s day).
(emphasis mine)
Luke 24:13 ***That very day (resurrection, Sunday) ***two of them were going to a village named Emma′us, about seven milesd] from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cle′opas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?”…[snip]
28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread."
At some point in those early decades, Jewish converts to Christ and Jews who didn’t convert, went their separate ways.
- Status