R
repo_man
Guest
either jews are polytheists or it’s possible for one god to be three persons which always existed.
- Status
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
He says if they destroy this Temple it will be raised again in 3 days and He was refering to Himself at that time.
Jesus said my yoke is easy with following Him, He also said He came to fullfill the Law not abolish it. His desire is ALL will come to God.
It would seem to, but Hes referring to people not liking change and as usual will fight about it. Think of what we fight about in this forum alone.
we are often set against one another. I would call it stating the facts.Jesus speaks about leaving the sheep to find the one lost one, the son that went away and came back to the father, All of us are desired to come to God, everyone. So His message of salvation is for anyone and everyone.
Imminent? whats time to God? He doesnt move in time as we think. We are slaves to time, He is not. We are always trying to take control, do the right thing. Thats why Jesus said He came to set us free, free of those things that bind and stop us. He wanted to loosen us to be all we can be, (before the US army, stole the statement
) That was His yoke.
T
tomarin
Guest
isn’t it worthwhile in answering this question to distinguish between jesus’s reception from the jewish religious leaders of that era and rank-and-file jews? in the new testament it is the pharisees who are offended by jesus’s teachings and actions, prompting him to explain that he “comes to fulfill the law not to abolish it”. of course he takes a dim view of most of the pharisees regarding them as corrupt hypocrites and a generation of vipers. in jesus’s view something has gone wrong with judaism as preached by the religious elite.
whereas by all accounts ordinary jews, the “multitudes” loved jesus and flocked to hear his every word and witness his miracles.
whenever someone asks this question my natural reaction is to respond: well, weren’t jesus’s first followers 100% jewish? the fact that historically there was conflict between the jewish followers of jesus, traditional jews, and gentile converts to christianity respectively as the religion began to spread throughout the cities of the roman empire suggests to me that claiming jesus’s message was too oriented to the individual and not enough to israel as a nation is an ahistorical and essentialist argument (which is acceptable if you’re a christian, problematic if you’re a religious jew).
V
Valke2
Guest
Several times in the Torah we have God saying that all of Israel shall be a holy people, for He is their God; as an explanation of why they are to do certain things, like remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy. This is a major theme throughout the Torah.
It is noticably absent in Jesus’ teachings. He replaces this with an individual’s faith in him. He sets forth requirements for which the individual, not the nation of Israel, is responsible for.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I fail to understand. Just because He wanted them to believe in Him (as the Son of God), that does not mean that He does not want them to be a “holy people”.
He doesn’t “replace” it with anything. He wants them to believe in Him, obviously, because He was the Son of God, and their Savior and Redeemer. Unless they believed in Him, they could not keep His commandments, hence could not be saved. But that did not mean that He did not want them to be a “holy people”. Peter writes to the Christian saints: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; . . .” (1 Peter 2:9). To those who believed in Him Jesus said: “Ye are the light of the world. . . . Let your light so shine before men, . . .” (Matthew 5:14–16). So that is part of the gospel message. But believing in Him was also an essential part of the gospel message. What did you expect Him to say to them—“Don’t bother believing in me, just be holy”? How would that make sense, coming from someone who claimed to be their Savior and Redeemer, and the Son of the living God?
Old Testament commandments were also intended for the individual. National responsibility begins with individual responsibility. Individuals make up the nation. If the individual does not feel responsible for obedience to the laws, the nation can’t be either. This aspect of your argument is incomprehensible from my point of view. Jesus’ commandments were addressed to the individual, and hence collectively to the body that was made up of those individuals. The Old Testament commandments were also addressed to individuals. I don’t see what you are driving at here.
zerinus
T
tomarin
Guest
i think you have to have some understanding of the special covenental (if that is indeed a word) relationship between god and the people of ancient israel in the old testament to see where he’s going with this. remember that in the old testament god has a covenant with the people of israel, which christians believe was rendered null and void when christ came to earth. but obviously jews still believe that covenant is active and in force, nomatter what jesus said or who he claimed to be.
when christ said “i came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it” he addressed this question directly, claiming to be in his very person the culmination of jewish law and prophesy and therefore not in contradiction to it. he was a reformer yes but much more (if you accept his divinity).
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
Yes!
This is what I found so frustrating about Neusner’s book. I don’t believe this has anything to do with why the majority of jews rejected Jesus. In his defense, I think he presents it as the reason he personally rejects him.
R
ricmat
Guest
As has been noted, Jesus said that he came not to change the law but to fulfill it. And as others have also said, to perfect it.
One of Jesus’ major themes was that the Jews of the time had gone overboard on “doing certain things” to the extent of not understanding the underlying meanings, or the real purpose for doing them. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates this. The Jews leave the injured man by the roadside, avoiding touching him because it would defile their ritual purity, and make them ineligible(?) to offer sacrifice. Meanwhile, the Good Samaritan comes along and fixes him up.
Ditto with Jesus purposely performing a bunch of miracles on the Sabbath. Yes, of course the Sabbath is important - Jesus didn’t change that, but don’t use it as an excuse not to help someone in need.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Covenant or no covenant—what he is saying doesn’t make sense to me either way. We don’t question the covenant relationship of the house of Israel with God. In fact we (LDS) believe that that covenant was never cancelled or abrogated. That covenant still remains in force. The covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendents was eternal, was never done away. But that is a different issue from what I am discussing with him. What he says makes no sense in whatever context you want to look at it.
I don’t see what relevance that has to what I am discussing with him.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Whether they are his own reasons or one that he has borrowed from somewhere else, they are illogical and incomprehensible as far as I can make out.
zerinus
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
There is evidence from within Jesus’s own story, that the “Old Covenant” is not void or cancelled for the Jews:
Luke 15
29 And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: 30 But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. 32 But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.
The older son’s situation doesn’t change at all by the end of the story.
Luke 15
29 And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: 30 But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. 32 But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.
The older son’s situation doesn’t change at all by the end of the story.
S
spauline
Guest
well, no, only the NT cov is valid now. but there is the sense in which the Jews are not fully culpable for failing to recognize the coming of their Messiah. In effect, my theory is, the three ages of the Jews is the same as three ways of the Catholic saint, which is in turn the way of the Church. Hence, first purgation (Egypt, Rome), then illumination, darkn night of soul and exile (the Prophets Babylonian Exile, the Church’s Doctrinal Development and minor apostasy and tribulation ), then the unitive (the Return from the Exile and period of peace, the Glorious Restoration of Catholicism and age of peace), and finally martyrdom (the OT Antichrist Antiochus, the NT Antichrist), and of course, the next “age”, the Coming of the Messiah (First, Second).
Hence, only when the Gentiles are departing forever from the NT Cov and the big guy Antichrist comes will the Jews eyes be opened, that is, they will recognized that the Gentiles will have gone through everything they did. Just a theory anyway.
Therefore, even when the second age is fulfilled (the intermediate apostasy and restoration), the Jews still refuse to see that the Gentiles are traversing their path. Only when the younger son tells the father to take a hike a SECOND time will the eyes of the older son be opened. And then truly, the Catholic faith shall pass mostly into the hands of the son that did not recognize it the first time.
R
ricmat
Guest
Your theory is very thought provoking. But as to the first sentence above, this is from the on-line catechism:
121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, **for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
**
You’ve obviously done more thinking about this than I have, but this paragraph seems to be pretty clear.
And as I was searching for the above, I came across this, which relates to some previous posts:
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
S
spauline
Guest
well, yes, I think you make a point here. What I meant was the objective reality. That is, TECHNICALLY, the OT has been FULFILLED, and hence, the true covenant for all men is the NT. But, I think the CCC means that, God has not foresaken the Jewish People, and for this reason, they still a special covenantal relationship to God. Indeed, God did not walk away from the OT cov but actually fulfilled it. That the majority of Jews did not recongize this then does not mean that the Church UTTERLY replaces the Jews. I think James Akin has a great article in which he disects this question at lenght. In it, and I think I am paraphrasing, the Church is neither Fundamentalist dispensationalists, as if to say that Christ will literally return to earth and have the Jews literally practice the animal sacrifices of the OT, etc. Yet, on the other hand, the CC is not fully of a “replacement theology” mentality, as if God has now forgotten the Jews forever and holds them irredeemable and unforgivable.
So I think I understand your objection, therefore, I should have phrased things better. Yes, the ultimate destiny of the Jewish people is to accept the Messiah before He comes again in Glory. And the general understanding is that this shall take place en masse in the time of the great apostasy of the Gentiles. Hence, one of the great beauties of salvation history is precisely this, God is EVEN able to draw a good from sin when it reaches its fullest and incurable manifestation in history at the end. That is, when the Gentiles depart from Christ en masse in the final times, and in a manner in which they can no longer be restored to faith practically, even then, God shall open the eyes of His initial Beloved, so that, as St. Paul exclaims, “for if their rejection has meant the salvation of the Gentiles, what shall their acceptance mean except Resurrection from the dead.”
Thank you for your comments, ricmat.
S
spauline
Guest
yes, I think I need to put it this way, ricmat:
The OT is NOT abolished but FULFILLED. In that regard, the OT is not revoked. It has merely flowered into the fullness that God desired to give to all humanity in the proper time. Maybe that is a better way to put it?
The OT is NOT abolished but FULFILLED. In that regard, the OT is not revoked. It has merely flowered into the fullness that God desired to give to all humanity in the proper time. Maybe that is a better way to put it?
V
Valke2
Guest
The laws and commandments set forth in the Torah were meant for men, not God, to follow. I can’t see or understand how they can be “fullfilled” as if one had only to obey a law to fullfill it.
And even if the were “fullfilled” that would mean that Israel successfully sanctified God’s name to the extent that the whole world followed/worshipped Him. That didn’t happen. If it did, we would have entered the Messianic Age.
R
ricmat
Guest
In a book we use to teach some of our catechism classes - it says in very brief terms:
Jesus perfectly fulfills the promises of every one of the five covenants in the Old Testament:
1. With Adam, because Jesus restores our relationship with God that was broken by Adam’s sin.
- With Noah, because the waters no longer destroy but rather redeem us.
- With Abraham, because through Jesus (Abraham’s descendant) all people of the world are blessed.
- With Moses, because the righteousness demanded by the Law is given to us all in Jesus Christ.
- With David, because Jesus, the Son of David, is Lord of all the nations.
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
Modern Judaism (particularly “reform Judasim”) is basically a totally different entity from Biblical Judaism. It is sadly based around rejecting Jesus as the Messaih.
Pray that they awaken and see the light.
Pray that they awaken and see the light.
V
Valke2
Guest
Your usual insight into Judaism has not diminished. How could it?
V
Valke2
Guest
Thanks. At least now I understand what Christians mean by Jesus fullfilling the law. It is a fullfillment of the promises God made. That makes more sense.In a book we use to teach some of our catechism classes - it says in very brief terms:
Jesus perfectly fulfills the promises of every one of the five covenants in the Old Testament:
1. With Adam, because Jesus restores our relationship with God that was broken by Adam’s sin.
- With Noah, because the waters no longer destroy but rather redeem us.
- With Abraham, because through Jesus (Abraham’s descendant) all people of the world are blessed.
- With Moses, because the righteousness demanded by the Law is given to us all in Jesus Christ.
- With David, because Jesus, the Son of David, is Lord of all the nations.
The book goes into quite a bit more detail (Chapter 23), but that’s the short version
- Status