Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?

[Valke2]

I ask again: What “event” made the Temple, and animal sacrifice no longer necessary? If it was so unimportant and secondary, why build a Temple at all? Why sacrifice at all?

So someone was reading Hosea and said “Hey, look at this, I found a loophole! We’ve built this expensive temple, and have been doing animal sacrifice all these 2000 years because we thought it was necessary, but we were wrong!” (No offense intended…but what was THE EVENT?)

I thought I answered you. prayer did not replace sacrifice as much as it co-existed with it. The destruction of the Temple, as I’m sure you know, made sacrifice impossible, as the only place to offer sacrifice was the Temple.

As to why build a Temple at all, there are some teachings that say God preferred to abolish sacrifices altoghether. But He understood that sacrificing animals at the time was how the Jews were used to communicating with the Divine. So, instead of risking that they would revert to sacrifices to Pagan Gods, the Torah rigidly controlled how and when sacrifices were to be offered, thus stregthening the monotheistic practices. The Midrash states that the commandments to build the Temple were only given after the Israelites built the golden calf.

 

[ricmat]

There is a midrash which says that this was done to show that all places are holy and that God is found in all places.

Indeed - Catholics think so too.

David moved the center of Jewish spirituality from Sinai to Jerusalem, and Solomon built a Temple in which to worship and sacrifice and speak to God in a special place - the Temple, Now, God is everywhere, so we can just pray and fast. Sacrifice is now optional, not required.

This is a HUGE change. A covenant-like change.

Assuming that it was NOT the Romans tearing down the temple, why did the change occur? When?

LATE EDIT: I guess it seems to me that your explanations seem like “after the fact” rationalizations, instead of Divine guidance. But thank you for your patience!

 

[Church_Militant]

CC 597

. . . Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

Anyone who goes beyond this is not speaking as a faithful Catholic and I agree with the Jewish folks on here who call it Antisemitism. It is also not Catholic teaching, but the erroneous prejudice of some individuals.
Shalom Elechim.

 

[ricmat]

I thought I answered you.

We’re in the middle of dueling posts I’ll take some time to do some pondering. Back later.

 

[colliric]

Anyone who goes beyond this is not speaking as a faithful Catholic and I agree with the Jewish folks on here who call it Antisemitism. It is also not Catholic teaching, but the erroneous prejudice of some individuals.
Shalom Elechim.

yes, as I said it was a curse for the people who were directly involved. The guilt was not on the Jewish people as a whole, but rather the direct descendants of those who were in Jerusalem and it wasn’t on Pilate for that matter either, even though he was a directly involved party and was responsible somewhat.

The guilt, in terms of this curse, rests on Judas and the Jewish leaders who delivered Jesus to Pilate, the “his blood be on us and on our children” to me sounds like it alluded to or was a prophecy of the bloodshed in Jerusalem in 70AD.

However we all have sinned and therefore the guilt therefore rests on everyone who’s sins caused Jesus’s crucifixion, which of cause is the whole world with the exception of Mary.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Anyone who goes beyond this is not speaking as a faithful Catholic and I agree with the Jewish folks on here who call it Antisemitism. It is also not Catholic teaching, but the erroneous prejudice of some individuals.
Shalom Elechim.

Don’t say such stupid things “Church Militant”. You simply disrespect the Church and insult what the Fathers of the Church believed. The Magisterium cannot change any definitive teaching based on solid Scriptural testimony or be altered for your personal taste.

Tell me, what is the significance of Jesus cursing the fig tree in Matthew 21?

In fulfilment of scripture, Jeremiah 8:13 may provide a clue.

.

 

[thefizzle656]

I can’t speak for all Jews, but as a former Jew I can tell you why I didn’t believe in Jesus Christ. When I finally found out that Christians believe that Jesus is God, I didn’t know what to think. Part of the reason was because Jews believe that when the Messiah comes the Temple will be rebuilt again and there will be some kind of utopian world peace. If you think that that is what the Messiah is supposed to do, then it leads one to reject Jesus. Another part of the reason was that it is so hard, in fact impossible, to grasp just exactly HOW it is that the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God could come to take on our human nature, become man, and be born of a Virgin. I’m still just absolutely stunned and blown away that God did this. He that created the entire universe and is the King of Glory came to us in the form of a helpless child, and it is just so incredible that I can’t even express it in words.

Of course, it might be different for other Jews, but that was what held me back for a while from conversion to Christianity.

 

[chosen_people]

Don’t say such stupid things “Church Militant”. You simply disrespect the Church and insult what the Fathers of the Church believed. The Magisterium cannot change any definitive teaching based on solid Scriptural testimony or be altered for your personal taste.

Tell me, what is the significance of Jesus cursing the fig tree in Matthew 21?

In fulfilment of scripture, Jeremiah 8:13 may provide a clue.

.

Finally we understand! What your saying is that It’s not you that is antisemetic but God!!!???.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Finally we understand! What your saying is that It’s not you that is antisemetic but God!!!???.

I’m not sure if that’s what Trad Catholic is saying. But, for the record, I’m in agreement with Church Militant on this matter.

Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

There is no doubt that Matthew 21:21 speaks of the fig tree. But so does Matthew 24:31-33…

And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.

Within a Catholic context, saying that the fig tree is accursed beyond redemption is like saying that Adam and Eve were accursed beyond redemption. According to Catholicism, it’s simply not true. And only God himself can judge the hearts of all in the end.

 

[Church_Militant]

Don’t say such stupid things “Church Militant”. You simply disrespect the Church and insult what the Fathers of the Church believed. **The Magisterium cannot change any definitive teaching based on solid Scriptural testimony or be altered for your personal taste.

Tell me, what is the significance of Jesus cursing**

the fig tree in Matthew 21?

In fulfilment of scripture, Jeremiah 8:13 may provide a clue.I beg to differ… if the current teaching of the magisterium is different than the one you like, you seem to ignore that and go try to find some documents that better suit your agenda, is that it?

If the magisterium says in documents and the 1984 CCC (and the Compendium Catechism) that that is the understanding of ENS, then who are you to offer interpretations that differ based on documents prior to that better understanding?

So suddenly, because it suits your agenda, you make an appeal to scripture like a SS Protestant?

I don’t buy it. You have been shown that you are wrong and now you want to try to paint me as the bad guy?

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Within a Catholic context, saying that the fig tree is accursed beyond redemption is like saying that Adam and Eve were accursed beyond redemption. According to Catholicism, it’s simply not true. And only God himself can judge the hearts of all in the end.

Saying that the fig tree is not accursed beyond redemption is not the same thing as saying that the fig tree has not been accursed at all. Not that I claimed anywhere that no one was beyond redemption.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

I beg to differ… if the current teaching of the magisterium is different than the one you like, you seem to ignore that and go try to find some documents that better suit your agenda, is that it?

If the magisterium says in documents and the 1984 CCC (and the Compendium Catechism) that that is the understanding of ENS, then who are you to offer interpretations that differ based on documents prior to that better understanding?

So suddenly, because it suits your agenda, you make an appeal to scripture like a SS Protestant?

I don’t buy it. You have been shown that you are wrong and now you want to try to paint me as the bad guy?

Yes, very amusing, Church Militant.

You still haven’t answered the question.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Saying that the fig tree is not accursed beyond redemption is not the same thing as saying that the fig tree has not been accursed at all. Not that I claimed anywhere that no one was beyond redemption.

Fair enough. But, to be fair, it did kind of sound like you were saying that the fig tree was accursed beyond redemption. At least, that’s how it sounded to me.

Just saying.

PS: I think that Jesus words in Matthew 21:21 might relate to Revelation 6:13 too…

…and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Fair enough. But, to be fair, it did kind of sound like you were saying that the fig tree was accursed beyond redemption. At least, that’s how it sounded to me.

Invincible ignorance holds Jews back I believe.

Look, for the record, I agree with the CCC. We should not look upon Jews as accursed or rejected of God. We should not treat them as criminals, pariahs or outcasts. We should treat them as brothers. As a younger brother helps the older brother. Why? because the older brother is under a cloud and suffers from it greatly. but even with the best will in the Christian world, not even the vatican can change the will of God. In the end Jews must accept Christ as their messiah. there’s no other solution.

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

Finally we understand! What your saying is that It’s not you that is antisemetic but God!!!???.

Oy Vey! You think God would let His Son go to Jerusalem if He hated Jews?

 

[chosen_people]

Oy Vey! You think God would let His Son go to Jerusalem if He hated Jews?

I feel your starting to understand the illogic of what your saying and the irony in my comment. Now if you could only understand why what you are saying is antisemitic. Incidentally, since you believe in devine punishment for the Jews, I have two questions. Is there devine punishment for those who persecuted the Jews over the centuries (on the basis of the ideology which you continue to shamelessly espouse)? and considering all the Jewish contributions to the world and their successes (see for instance Nobel prizes) is this the “Devil’s” work in your opinion?

 

[Montalban]

No, The creed says he “was crucified under Pontius Pilate” but Pilate was not the main guilty party of the affair, Jesus himself says so. He says “it is the person who delivered me to you who has the greater sin.”

Under Pilate is correct. Pilate had the over-all authority (as vested in him by the Emperor).

 

[artist3189]

Under Pilate is correct. Pilate had the over-all authority (as vested in him by the Emperor).

Yes, but don’t change the Scriptures, the ‘Ruling Party’ of Jewish leaders wanted Christ gone, they were the biggest motivators here. Note I said, ‘Ruling Party’, not the Jews in general. And the obvious answer to that is, who were the first converts? How can anyone disparage a whole race when the Mother of our Lord was, Jewish. But, don’t put the emphasis only on Pilate to make people feel good, it ‘was what it was’. The ‘curse’, so called, is Scriptural, it’s there, does anyone on this site want to start to re-write Scripture because they don’t like what they’ve read. Well, start at the first word then and do what Martin Luther did. The Church has the wisdom to understand what this exactly MEANS and how it should be approached. The Catechism is clear on this. The Scripture reading is clear, and the series of events and who was involved, is clear. Antisemitism is not to be tolerated, neither is re-interpreting or re-writing Scripture. We, as Catholics, Traditional, or not, are bound by the Magesteriums teaching on this, and I think we all know that. But, you can’t simply discount Scriptural events, and text. What is the meaning of ’ quote, "And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” And who’s children, all of Israel or the people yelling and condemning Christ. It seems to me that the actual persons involved, the active attackers had brought this ‘guilt’ upon themselves, they, in a sense ‘cursed themselves’. But *not everyone *in the crowd, not this supporters, surely, not every Jewish person, unknowingly. This just doesnt’ seem to fit Christ and his mission. But again, who am I to know and make any real claim of understanding. What was said, was said. The Church is the final say on how our Jewish friends are to be treated, with respect. We all wish our Jewish friends to convert so as to partake in the fullness of the prophetic Revelation, but that is a long road.

 

[colliric]

Under Pilate is correct. Pilate had the over-all authority (as vested in him by the Emperor).

Yes that is true but if Pilate was the only guilty party it would infact read something along the lines of “He was crucified by Pilate”

The fact is it says “under” not “by” inferring that the crucifixion occured while Pilate was in power, but not explicitly saying it was his fault and neither does it say he was the main party.

The fact is he did not want Jesus to die nor be held responsible for Jesus death after he was told by his wife of her strange dream, but he was torn by his own role of keeping the peace and trying to appease the Jewish leaders so there would not be an uprising.

He bestowed the jurisdiction on them, and washed his hands literally of the affair. This is a grievous sin, and even against the laws of Rome itself, but Jesus told Pilate “the person who delivered me to you has the greater sin”. The fact of the matter is Pilate did not directly kill Jesus, he allowed the Jewish pharisees to kill Jesus, His sin was lesser than theirs in delivering Jesus to Pilate in the first place.

 

[Jerusha]

If Jesus came teaching here today, who among you would reject what He had to say? It is a purely human tendency to reject and even persecute someone who says that you have come under religious bondage and you need to change your ways.

There are many Jews today who follow the teachings of Jesus, and much of the essence of His teachings (and the teachings of his Essene brothers) is contained in the writings of Jewish scholars from His time on.

I have been told that the main objection to Jesus, as followed in the Catholic tradition, is against cannibalism. That argument is unanswerable.