Why Jews don't need to be saved

[Valke2]

Given the lack of a priesthood, Temple & sacrificial system, how are the religious requirements and needs which they met when they existed now taken care of ? To put it another way - did the Temple have any religious or social function that the synagogue & personal piety could not take care of ?​

Yes. The Temple is not the same as the houses of worship we use today. As I’m sure you know, sacrifices can only be done in the Temple. And Hashem’s glory resided in the holy of holies in the Temple.

However, there is good reason, under Jewish law, to believe that Hashem always prefered prayer and acts to sacrifice and that Sacrifice was given almost as a recognition of our weakness, as it was something we were used to doing. SO, rather than have the jews revert back to sacrifices to idols, Halacha/Hashem instituted a system of sacrifices that re-inforced our belief and committment to the One (and only) God.

This is why Rambam and others have stated that when the Temple is rebuilt, sacrifices may not be required again.

Very general answer to a topic that requires a lot of detail.

 

[Damascus]

There is a misconception among many people that Judaism teaches that we are redeemed by obeying the commandments – through our deeds and acts. But this is not the case.

We were redeemed at Mt. Sinai when God gave us the Torah. Our obeying the mitzvot/commandments through accepting Torah is our RESPONSE to the redemption. It is how we express our relationship with God.

When a missionary attempts to convince a Jew that he or she needs to accept Jesus in order to be saved, they are essentially offering us a gift we have already received. And they are asking us to give up our relationship with God, which we express through the obeying of His Commandments. Not a good deal for us.

The Catholic response to: "asking us to give up our relationship with God…

Could you bear with me a minute on this answer?

Look at this another way. You would not be giving anything up at all.
Your relationship with God would not be any less.
Explain to me how it would be less or that it would be a bad deal for you.

I am asking you what you feel you would be loosing. This is an important point.

Besides, no one would ask you to give up a relationship with God. That implies we don’t have a relationship with God.

Yes, the relationship is different. Would it be less?

I ask since your response will help me understand the issues here with greater clarity.

 

[Damascus]

Okay, I think I found something interesting, and I ask others to help me out here.

It seems that John Paul II (of happy memory!) made a statement to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz on November 17th 1980.

"The people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked…

Could someone help me verify if in fact this information is correct?

I found it on a Jewish Website, not that I suspect that site at all, I just wonder if a Catholic can verify this statement.

Now, if Holy Father thought this way, I will have to say that we must take serious consideration to his words, as he was we can agree a man who knew much more than us on these matters, no?

 

[Valke2]

The Catholic response to: "asking us to give up our relationship with God…

Could you bear with me a minute on this answer?

Look at this another way. You would not be giving anything up at all.
Your relationship with God would not be any less.
Explain to me how it would be less or that it would be a bad deal for you.

I am asking you what you feel you would be loosing. This is an important point.

Besides, no one would ask you to give up a relationship with God. That implies we don’t have a relationship with God.

Yes, the relationship is different. Would it be less?

I ask since your response will help me understand the issues here with greater clarity.

I would be losing the method I now have in pursuing my relationship with God.

 

[Valke2]

Okay, I think I found something interesting, and I ask others to help me out here.

It seems that John Paul II (of happy memory!) made a statement to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz on November 17th 1980.

"The people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked…

Could someone help me verify if in fact this information is correct?

I found it on a Jewish Website, not that I suspect that site at all, I just wonder if a Catholic can verify this statement.

Now, if Holy Father thought this way, I will have to say that we must take serious consideration to his words, as he was we can agree a man who knew much more than us on these matters, no?

I"m not catholic but I can verify the statement. From the Catholic Sentinel:

A developing theme in theology today, one clearly addressed by Pope John Paul II himself, is that the Sinai Covenant remains valid and ongoing in its own right. The Christ Event did not invalidate it, nor did the Church replace Israel in the covenantal relationship. On a visit to Mainz, Germany, the Pope addressed the Jewish community as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked by God.” He went on to emphasize the “permanent value” of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish community that witnesses to those Scriptures as sacred texts. sentinel.org/articles/2000-18/3909.html

 

[Valke2]

The Catholic response to: "asking us to give up our relationship with God…

Could you bear with me a minute on this answer?

Look at this another way. You would not be giving anything up at all.
Your relationship with God would not be any less.
Explain to me how it would be less or that it would be a bad deal for you.

I am asking you what you feel you would be loosing. This is an important point.

Besides, no one would ask you to give up a relationship with God. That implies we don’t have a relationship with God.

Yes, the relationship is different. Would it be less?

I ask since your response will help me understand the issues here with greater clarity.

I did not intend to imply that CHristians do not have a relationship with God. That would be ridiculous, IMO. But as a jew, my method of pursuing that relationship is different.

 

[Damascus]

I did not intend to imply that CHristians do not have a relationship with God. That would be ridiculous, IMO. But as a jew, my method of pursuing that relationship is different.

I agree on that point, and am glad that you accept that we have a relationship with God. Thank you for responding to my questions and my post re: Holy Father’s statements in Germany.

Personally, I think this matter is one that will continue to be a deepening of understanding on both sides. It really is important.

Have a great day Valke2,

L’Chayim!

 

[markol91784]

Maybe I was unclear somehow.

I am not saying that one can not preach the Gospel to all peoples.

I am saying something else. Jews and Muslims are a seperate issue and not comparable to Protestants.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Please read this with prayerful consideration and tell me what I must have missed in this document.

Church teaching must be taken in the entirety. If you read CCC1257 you will explicitly that Baptism is required for salvation to those who have heard the Gospel. There is no known way for anyone Jew, Moslem, Hindu, or anyone else who has heard the Gospel to make it to Heaven unless they have been baptised. The same paragraph also mentions that God can work outside the Sacraments. So if someone has not been baptised you might still make it to Heaven, but this would be extraordinary.

CCC1260 says that those ignorant of the Gospel but seek to live by conscience to follow God, as they understand Him, can make it to Heaven because, if they knew that the Higher Power they followed was fully revealed in the Catholic Church they may have desired Baptism and thus been allowed into Heaven in an ordinary manner.

Baptism can be by water CCC1257, blood CCC1258, or desire CCC1258-1261, but it is the only known means for salvation.

In regards to Baptism of desire. In Catholic morality there is vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. If your conscience is wrong it could be cupable or inculpable. If someone is Jewish and raised their entire life being told that they do not need Baptism and then they hear the Gospel but are not baptised they could still make it to Heaven because because there conscience was inculpably erroneous and they were invincibly ignorant. But only God can determine the answer to that. That is why Jesus told us not to judge. Because we can never know the guilt of an individual and whether or not they will go to Heaven or not. The Church only tells us who is definitely in Heaven (canonized Saints) and has never said if anyone is in Hell because that is God’s decision not ours. However, since the only known means of salvation is through Baptism it is out duty to try and baptise all nations.

 

[IHS]

Yes. The Temple is not the same as the houses of worship we use today. As I’m sure you know, sacrifices can only be done in the Temple. And Hashem’s glory resided in the holy of holies in the Temple.

However, there is good reason, under Jewish law, to believe that Hashem always prefered prayer and acts to sacrifice and that Sacrifice was given almost as a recognition of our weakness, as it was something we were used to doing. SO, rather than have the jews revert back to sacrifices to idols, Halacha/Hashem instituted a system of sacrifices that re-inforced our belief and committment to the One (and only) God.

This is why Rambam and others have stated that when the Temple is rebuilt, sacrifices may not be required again.

Very general answer to a topic that requires a lot of detail.

How is there atonement without the shedding of blood?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Church teaching must be taken in the entirety. If you read CCC1257 you will explicitly that Baptism is required for salvation to those who have heard the Gospel.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Agreed.

But what if the Gospel has been presented poorly, such as by someone who is not actually skilled enough to present it clearly to others?

Or what if the Gospel has been presented in a violent manner, such as during some validly bloody aspects of the crusades?

Or what if the Gospel has been twisted around to the intentions of a political or philosophical movement, such as some kind of liberation theology for example?

In short, what if those who are proclaiming the Gospel are in all fairness quite ignorant of what the Gospel actually proclaims? And if the people who hear the Gospel proclaimed are hearing it proclaimed by people noted in the examples above, can these people who hear the Gospel really be held accountable for rejecting it?

I’m not trying to pick a fight. But I think these are extremely important questions that need to be asked of the Spirit before we rush into conclusions that God himself might not actually adhere to. And, so far anyway, no one seems to be really willing to tackle these questions.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

There is no known way for anyone Jew, Moslem, Hindu, or anyone else who has heard the Gospel to make it to Heaven unless they have been baptised. The same paragraph also mentions that God can work outside the Sacraments. So if someone has not been baptised you might still make it to Heaven, but this would be extraordinary.

Perhaps I’m bodering on heresy here-- but I just don’t think a clear examination of world history supports this view that this would be an extraordinary event.

markol91784:

CCC1260 says that those ignorant of the Gospel but seek to live by conscience to follow God, as they understand Him, can make it to Heaven because, if they knew that the Higher Power they followed was fully revealed in the Catholic Church they may have desired Baptism and thus been allowed into Heaven in an ordinary manner.

I certainly agree with this-- so there’s no argument from me here.

markol91784:

Baptism can be by water CCC1257, blood CCC1258, or desire CCC1258-1261, but it is the only known means for salvation.

1 Corinthians 10:1-3:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

As Catholics we fully understand that Christ passed the keys of the kingdom onto his chosen rock-- that is, Peter. I would never even desire to dispute this in any way. Yet we should also take note that Christ is most certainly able to baptize in ways outside of water and blood and even desire.

In the above passage, we note that Christ baptized through the cloud and in the sea.

In the case of the sea, we know full well that the waters actually parted-- so the Israelites did not touch the water during this time. In the same way, Noah and his family, when undergoing the great deluge, certainly went through an event that Peter himself links with baptism…
1 Pope 3:20-21:

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the response of a good conscious toward God.

…and yet, just like the Israelites passing through the Red Sea as they escaped Pharaoh’s chariots, neither Noah nor his family actually touched the waters of the great deluge either. In fact, it’s precisely because they were not in the water which saved them and destroyed the world that was around them

Futhermore, as the 1 Corinthians passage quoted above clearly seems to indicate, the Lord apparently used his own shekena glory within the cloud to baptize as well-- and this would most certainly qualify as a substance differing remarkably from both blood and water.

So, to be fair, I don’t think that water and blood are the only known subtances whereby God may employ as a means for salvation. While we certainly have our limits within the Church in what we are instructed to employ for this sacrament, it seems to me that God does not have any limits in what he may use to baptize.

But now let’s come to desire.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is why Rambam and others have stated that when the Temple is rebuilt, sacrifices may not be required again.

What did Moses think in regards to the temple described in Ezekial?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

CCC1260 says that those ignorant of the Gospel but seek to live by conscience to follow God, as they understand Him, can make it to Heaven because, if they knew that the Higher Power they followed was fully revealed in the Catholic Church they may have desired Baptism and thus been allowed into Heaven in an ordinary manner.

I know I already said this, but I just wanted to stress again that I agree with you very much on this markol91784.

The Scriptures strongly testify to this thought too.

But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.

And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?

No, you will go down to the depths.

If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Both Scripture and Sacred Tradition are clear on this-- God judges in proportion to that which is revealed. The one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded-- and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Now comes baptism of desire…

markol91784:

In regards to Baptism of desire. In Catholic morality there is vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. If your conscience is wrong it could be cupable or inculpable. If someone is Jewish and raised their entire life being told that they do not need Baptism and then they hear the Gospel but are not baptised they could still make it to Heaven because their conscience was inculpably erroneous and they were invincibly ignorant.

This is an excellent example of what I was getting at above-- if they have rejected faith in Christ, it may not necessarilly be through no fault of their own.

On the other hand, we might, to some extent anway, be partly to blaim too.

markol91784:

But only God can determine the answer to that. That is why Jesus told us not to judge. Because we can never know the guilt of an individual and whether or not they will go to Heaven or not. The Church only tells us who is definitely in Heaven (canonized Saints) and has never said if anyone is in Hell because that is God’s decision not ours. However, since the only known means of salvation is through Baptism it is out duty to try and baptise all nations.

Exactly.

But I think there’s still the matter of when someone is pushed away from the Catholic faith by those who should have known better.

Take for example those children who were sexually abused by various Catholic priests.

Would these children be held accountable by God for rejecting the faith in which he chose to save the world?

See…I have no doubts about whether or not the Catholic Church is the true church of God. The Catholic Church is the Church of God.

My question is more focussed on when we as Catholics sin against others and therefore turn people away from the Catholic Church.

Who’s fault is it when conditions like this are met?

 

[Valke2]

How is there atonement without the shedding of blood?

Atonement is found through T’Shuva. The process of causing a transgression to be forgiven. The Hebrew word for “atone” shares the same root as the word “to cover”. Judaism recognizes that a sin can never be removed as if it never existed. It can only be “covered” through T’Shuva, meaning:
Truly regret what you have done, confesses before God, seeks forgivness from those you have transgressed, firmly resolves never to repeat those actions, and, when a similar situation presents itself to the one that caused you to sin, you don’t sin.

Yom Kippur (the day of atonement) is a time when we try (or should try) to make certain that they have performed Teshuva before the end of the day. Even when the Temple stood and we were required to bring atonement sacrifices, the most important part of atonement was still T’Shuva.

 

[Damascus]

Valke 2

Can you tell me if there are any Jewish people that accept the concept of original sin?

I mean, I am not aware of any.

 

[Valke2]

Valke 2

Can you tell me if there are any Jewish people that accept the concept of original sin?

I mean, I am not aware of any.

None that I’m aware of. Maybe jews for jesus, but they don’t practice judaism.

 

[Damascus]

Valke 2

I dont think they do either-

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hellenistic Jews expressed an idea very similar to original sin, possibly up to a couple of centuries before the coming of Christ if I recall correctly.

 

[Damascus]

Thanks for the info Mr ex nillio. I will research that, it gives me more questions that I think will be important in another matter.

 

[IHS]

Atonement is found through T’Shuva. The process of causing a transgression to be forgiven. The Hebrew word for “atone” shares the same root as the word “to cover”. Judaism recognizes that a sin can never be removed as if it never existed. It can only be “covered” through T’Shuva, meaning:
Truly regret what you have done, confesses before God, seeks forgivness from those you have transgressed, firmly resolves never to repeat those actions, and, when a similar situation presents itself to the one that caused you to sin, you don’t sin.

Yom Kippur (the day of atonement) is a time when we try (or should try) to make certain that they have performed Teshuva before the end of the day. Even when the Temple stood and we were required to bring atonement sacrifices, the most important part of atonement was still T’Shuva.

Are you saying your sins are covered but not washed? Without a blood sacrifice there is no cleansing.