Posted on 09/25/2003 9:18:42 AM PDT by Greg Luzinski
Jewish leaders continue to decry Mel Gibson’s forthcoming Jesus movie for supposedly threatening to whip up anti-Semitism. Due out next April, "The Passion" identifies Jewish priests as instigators of the crucifixion. Maimonides, too, in his Mishnah Torah, affirms Jewish involvement in Jesus’ execution — which must make the greatest of medieval Jewish sages an anti-Semite, too.
But the film I’d like to see produced that would really make some Jews nervous, while teaching a healthy lesson: an honest depiction not of Jesus’ death, but of his preaching. The Christian Bible makes clear what was probably the main theme of his sermons. It is a theme that many liberal rabbis, to their discomfort, would feel obliged to endorse.
Today’s secular historians generally assert that Jesus was a loyal adherent of Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. They argue against the conventional Christian understanding that Jesus radically critiqued Judaism. On this, the Christians are right.
True, Jesus is repeatedly quoted in the gospels as embracing Torah observance (e.g., Matthew 5:17-18). He must have accepted certain broadly defined mitzvot like the Sabbath and Temple sacrifice, because his followers were still practicing these commandments just after his death.
What Jesus rejected was the oral Torah that explains the written Torah. Essential to rabbinic Judaism, this notion of an oral Torah recognizes the Pentateuch as a cryptic document, a coded text. It posits that the Bible’s first five books were revealed to Moses along with a key to unlock the code — for a lock is never made without a key.
This oral tradition was passed from Moses to the prophets to the rabbis, later to be written down in the Mishnah and Talmud. At least that’s the theory presented in the first chapter of the Mishnah’s tractate Pirke Avot, a theory that still animates traditional Judaism.
On point after point, Jesus derides not the written Torah but its orally transmitted interpretations. He does so on matters like the details of Sabbath observance (no carrying objects in a public space, no harvesting produce or use of healing salves except to save a life), donating a yearly half shekel to the Temple, refraining from bathing and anointing on fast days like Yom Kippur, hand washing before eating bread and praying with a quorum.
Stated this way, laundry-list fashion, such commandments from the oral tradition might seem like trivialities, as they did to Jesus. But from the constellation of such discrete teachings there emerges the gorgeous pointillist masterpiece of Torah — not merely "the Torah," the finite text of the Pentateuch that the Christian founder accepted, but the infinite tradition of Judaism as a whole, reflecting God’s mind as applied to human affairs.
For Jesus, oral Torah was a manmade accretion without transcendent authority. He tells a group of Pharisees, "So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God," citing Isaiah. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:7-9).
Elsewhere, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens hard to bear" (Luke 12:46).
From this position, it was a logical next step to that of the apostle Paul, who abrogated the Torah altogether, oral and written. Abandon the former and you’ll soon abandon the latter.
A phenomenally charismatic person, Jesus mocked the Jewish establishment of his day and was adulated by a following from Galilee, the region where he conducted his brief ministry, famous in this period (as professor Geza Vermes shows) for the ignorance of the local populace. Knowing no better, loathing Pharisees as their own teacher did, they thought Jesus uniquely had Judaism all figured out.
Sound familiar? Reform ideology has always viewed oral tradition as being pretty much nothing more than the "precepts of men," while the Conservative movement increasingly understands it as a human creation, "hard to bear." Having grown up in a Los Angeles-area Reform community, I can testify that most Reform and Conservative temples impart a level of lay education that is approximately Galilean. As radio commentator Michael Medved has memorably said, the majority of Jews in our country know little about Judaism other than that it rejects Jesus.
Yet when it comes to the oral Torah, most American Jews follow Jesus without know it.
Mr. Gibson, please consider making another movie, a prequel about his career before the crucifixion showing how much Christianity we have unwittingly absorbed.
Torah indeed necessitates rejecting Christianity, but that means rejecting also the Christian view on the most fundamental of concepts in all Judaism: oral Torah. A Jesus movie about his life as a preacher would be a good dose of reality, if unpopular with our beloved Jewish leaders — not, come to think of it, unlike the film that Gibson will give us next year.
David Klinghoffer’s new book is “The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism” (Doubleday, 2003).
Of course it would pass muster. He is saying here that the Catholics - in contrast to the Donatists - CAN demonstrate their Church through Scripture.
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church*, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven*; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NIV)
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church*, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven*, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NKJ)
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church*; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven*: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (KJV)
I know you'll have all kinds of reasons that Matthew 16 doesn't prove the primacy of Peter, but the early witness of the Church proves otherwise.
Who are the "many" who didn't? Since the few quotes I've seen from polemicists like James White about the real absence,oops, I mean the Eucharist being only a symbol were always either totally taken out of context, or where from a Father who stated the opposite belief on(many)other occasions, meaning the quote was misunderstood.
Me, I'll go with Ignatius of Antioch. He sat at the feet of the Apostle John. And we know whose feet John sat at.
Yep. That's the correct translation.;)
And I posted about a dozen quotes of the fathers showing that they believed in sola scriptura. And there are plenty of writings indicating that many early and well-known fathers did not believe in distinctive Catholic doctrines. Here are just a couple regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary:
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses;) then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred;) after that He was seen of JAMES, HIS OWN BROTHER, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? "I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. 7, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem, "Lecture 14" P. 269) (Emphasis not in original)
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. THIS JAMES WAS CALLED THE BROTHER OF THE LORD BECAUSE HE WAS KNOWN AS A SON OF JOSEPH, AND JOSEPH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FATHER OF CHRIST, BECAUSE THE VIRGIN, BEING BETROTHED TO HIS, "WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER," as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol 1, "The Church History of Eusebius", Book 2, Chap 1, pp. 182-3) (Emphasis not in the original)
The Epistle to the Romans does not prove that the Catholic faith is not true. Period. You're misusing Scripture here.
Are you reading what I write? I never said that the passage in Romans proves that the Catholic faith is not true; rather, it proves that the Catholic faith is not protected from error. That's a big difference.
What do you think Paul means here? He's telling the Church at Rome that it is not immune to error!
Find me a quote that says "Mary was the mother of James" and that would interest me(though only one wouldn't be convincing). These do not prove what you think they do.
And I posted about a dozen quotes of the fathers showing that they believed in sola scriptura.
No, you posted several quotes that did not contradict Catholic teaching on Scripture and that did not prove that Sola Scriptura or the Reformation was correct.
What do you think Paul means here? He's telling the Church at Rome that it is not immune to error!
It doesn't mean what you think it does. If it did, it would have been quoted against the Apostolic See from a very early time. It's your private interpretation of Romans, and it's wrong.
I've given you examples in other postings.
Since the few quotes I've seen from polemicists like James White ...
So James White is a polemicist since he dares point out the errors of the Magisterium? He's a scholar, and a pretty decent one at that. I notice that you attack him and not his research.
Was Galileo a polemicist, too? The Catholic church kept him under house arrest because he taught against the teachings of the Magisterium.
Me, I'll go with Ignatius of Antioch. He sat at the feet of the Apostle John. And we know whose feet John sat at.
Really? Ignatius wrote "I salute the keepers of the holy gates, the deaconesses in Christ." Does the Roman church accept deaconesses?
Does the fact that Ignatius of Antioch sat at John's feet somehow make him right? After all, if you open your Bible, you'll note that many who sat at the feet of Paul developed false doctrines. Even Peter had to be corrected about a false doctrine.
I'll go with the teachings of the Bible and the apostolic church, not some Magisterium whose claims to infallibility are demonstrably false.
That's because there are all sorts of reasons that Matthew 16 doesn't prove the primacy of Peter -- it mentions nothing about succession, infallibiliy, or any other features of the modern papacy. You're reading your beliefs into the text, not reading truth out of the text.Note also that the authority to bind and loose is given to Peter in this text, but the identical power is given to the rest of the disciples in Matthew 18:18. The simple fact is that Matthew 16 gives no support for the doctrine of the Roman papacy.
Um, let's see. Jesus says "Who Eats the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drinks His Blood Has Life in him...My Flesh is food indeed and my Blood is drink indeed". Later, on the night before He died, He takes bread and says "This is My Body". Then He takes wine and says "This Is my Blood". Still later, Paul says that anyone who eats and drinks of the Eucharist unworthily is "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord". And then the constant tradition of the Church says that the Holy Eucharist is the True Presence of Jesus. One of St. John's followers, who learned his doctrine from John, says, "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes". Gee! I wonder what I should believe?
Who are the "many" who didn't? I've given you examples in other postings.
No, you haven't given me one example of an Early Father who denied a Catholic doctrine.
Really? Ignatius wrote "I salute the keepers of the holy gates, the deaconesses in Christ." Does the Roman church accept deaconesses?
No, but we have something called nuns today that fulfills the function that the deaconesses did. The deaconesses of the Early Church did not serve at the altar.
I'll go with the teachings of the Bible and the apostolic church, not some Magisterium whose claims to infallibility are demonstrably false.
I'll go with the Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Church, and has preserved and taught the Scriptures throughout the ages.
So James White is a polemicist since he dares point out the errors of the Magisterium? He's a scholar, and a pretty decent one at that. I notice that you attack him and not his research.
White is an anti-Catholic sensationalist. He even hates his own sister who, by the Grace of God, recently converted to the Catholic Church.
It's given to the Apostles, who share in the work of binding and loosing when they act in communion with Peter. Show me a verse where Mary Magdalene or Zacchaeus or another non-apostolic follower of Jesus is given the power of binding and loosing.
Impossible because Christ's royal lineage through his adopted father depends upon Him being the firstborn. Even reknowned Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott calls this idea implausible in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (page 207 in my book).
the Western Fathers believed they(James and the other "brothers of the Lord") were close relatives of Joseph, but not the blood brothers of Jesus,ie, His cousin.
Ah, the old cousin argument. The problem is that Luke, for example, which was written in Greek, specifically uses the word adelphos, which means brother, not cousin, which is anepsios. If Luke had really meant cousin, then why didn't he use the word for it?
Find me a quote that says "Mary was the mother of James" and that would interest me(though only one wouldn't be convincing). These do not prove what you think they do.
Want more? There's plenty.
"And many women were there beholding afar off, which had followed Him, ministering unto Him, Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, AND JOSES, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." . . . And these first see Jesus; and the sex that was most condemned, this first enjoys the sight of the blessings, this most shows its courage. And when the disciples had fled, these were present. But who were these? HIS MOTHER, FOR SHE IS CALLED MOTHER OF JAMES, and the rest." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, " 1st Series, Vol. 10, "Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew," Homily 5, . pp. 1087-8) (Emphasis added)
"Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, whilst knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ," — of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph." (A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Ed., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. 2, "Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus," Comments on the Epistle of Jude, p. 1164)
Here's one from a council for good measure:
". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," 2nd Series, Vol. 14; "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church," The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis added)
No, you posted several quotes that did not contradict Catholic teaching on Scripture and that did not prove that Sola Scriptura or the Reformation was correct.
You'd better read the Catholic teaching on scripture again because they most definitely contradicted it!
It doesn't mean what you think it does. If it did, it would have been quoted against the Apostolic See from a very early time. It's your private interpretation of Romans, and it's wrong.
Actually, it has been used against Rome for a long, long time. However, Rome in her arrogance wouldn't listen. The scripture here is plain -- what does the Magisterium tell you to think about it? LOL
They weren't. But to imply all the trappings of the papacy on the basis of a couple of verses is pretty laughable and shows that Rome has feet of clay. If Matthew 16 implies that Peter's successors hold the keys, then wouldn't Matthew 18:18 imply that all of the apostles should have successors? Use some logic.
Oh, please -- you're getting to be too much and are just making things up now. Open your eyes, man, and read what I wrote! I'm going to bed.
Where is the evidence that he hates his own sister? Good grief! And so what if she became a Catholic? It proves nothing. Even Jesus' family didn't believe in Him at first "For neither did his brethren believe in him” (John 7:5).
Enjoy your sleep.;)
When you wake up and re-read these posts, you'll see that not one of the quotes from the Fathers you posted says anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. Your so-called "Sola Scriptura" posts do not teach the Reformed Position; your "James is Josephs' son" do not show us that Mary gave birth to James; nothing you posted contradicts Catholic teaching. And EVERY FATHER THAT YOU QUOTED has stated explicitly the Catholic position in other circumstances.
You didn't show that the Early Fathers weren't Catholic. That's what you said you were going to do earlier. I knew you wouldn't be able to, because one thing is for sure: the Fathers sure as hell weren't Protestants.
I think you're the one who needs to open his eyes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.