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).
Why would you tell them to stop ?
They might think you were bashing them and be offended and troubled.
I'm not trying to discredit everything they say. I'm merely pointing out that just because a father believed something doesn't somehow make it right. My argument is that they weren't infallible. I don't know what your argument is.Luther was an anti-semite as well. He wrote a tract called "The Jews And Their Lies", and advocated burning down synagogues. I won't bother posting the quotes for "shock effect"; a Google search will turn them up without a problem. Calvin was also anti-semitic. Again, try Google. What does any of that prove? Nothing, at least not about the subject at hand.Plus, the idea of Perpetual Virginity was not held by "every other father" -- I've already proved that. Do you ever read what I've posted? You might want to try it sometime before you start writing.
I'm well aware of that and, you're right, it proves nothing except that they were dead wrong on some things. However, I don't require some sort of unanimity between Calvin and Luther before I believe a certain doctrine.It certainly doesn't prove that the Early Church believed in Reformed Theology. When you can find quotes than can prove that, get back to me.
I've already proved that plenty of them had an idea of sola scriptura that agrees with the Protestant position and that not all -- especially the earlier fathers -- believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. You ignore all of this and claim they didn't really mean what they said. Then you make the audacious claim that Romans 11 really doesn't apply to the Church of Rome! I mean, duh, why would Paul write those things to the Church at Rome if they weren't applicable?No wonder you like James White so much. You're following his debate playbook. You lose on the main issues, so the "shock" effect is needed. Lame. Really lame.Again, you need to read before you make your audacious claims. That, and you need to bone up on what sola scriptura really means before you start bashing it.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I like James White so much? I've read his book dealing with the Trinity and was neither impressed or unimpressed. You're the one who's hung up on James White. But you apparently think that if you can't argue against his facts, then calling him names is okay.Oh, and I haven't lost on the main issues, merely pointed out that you don't understand them and that you refuse to accept the plain meaning of both scripture and the early fathers.
I wasn't trying to deprecate you personally. But when you come out of left field with post after post about Catholicism that sounds like it's from a Jack Chick tract or a hundred year old polemic...I mean, c'mon! DallasGuy has quotes from the Fathers; I'm responding with posts from the Fathers. You post about the Roman Government being in cahoots with the Church in response to something that happened in 190 A.D., roughly 130 years before Christianity was recognized by the Roman Empire as the official Religion.
I'm sorry if I sound condescending; I don't want to. But I think you need to read some secular and Church history to understand some of this stuff, and not just anti-Catholic works by people with an axe to grind.
What Jesus told His disciples was now the New Covenant in His Blood included the following:
Where God's Law had previously been intended for only His chosen people, the Jews, the New Law was intended for Jew and Gentile alike... for all mankind.
Jesus also taught of other changes from the rules in the Pentatuch, such as that food once declared unclean was now clean; "It is not what man puts into his mouth that corrupts him, but what proceeds from his mouth...", etc.
But the biggest difference (along with the previous Covenant having been replaced) was that God's Law was now intended for all of mankind, Jew and Gentile alike.
I would be curious, too, since the doctrine didn't really develop fully until about 700 years ago!The amazing thing is that somany doctrines supposedly held unanimously by the early fathers and believed by the early church are, in fact, relatively new. Not that old doctrines are necessarily any better than new doctrines -- the apostles were fighting heretical beliefs while they still walked the earth.
Sigh. I said it doesn't apply to the claims of Petrine Primacy. It was addressed to the Christians of Rome. But is it about what you say it's about? I don't think so. And you said many others have used this against the Catholic Church for years? Who? One of the Fathers, or someone writing to a modern audience? Please show me that it was used against the claims of the Petrine Primacy by people who are taken seriously by all sides, not by some guy who writes sensationalism for Harvest House publishers.
Plus, the idea of Perpetual Virginity was not held by "every other father" -- I've already proved that. Do you ever read what I've posted? You might want to try it sometime before you start writing.
Please show me ONE QUOTE from an early Father that says, unequivocally, Mary had other biological children. The Chrysostom quote isn't conclusive, the quotes about "James the Son of Joseph" aren't convincing because of the tradition of James being Joseph's son from another marriage. A quote that categorically says Mary had other children from the fathers.You won't find one because the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity dates back to the time of Christ. Polycarp held it, for instance. You can't much earlier than him.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I like James White so much? I've read his book dealing with the Trinity and was neither impressed or unimpressed. You're the one who's hung up on James White. But you apparently think that if you can't argue against his facts, then calling him names is okay.
You're the one who can't argue with facts, which is why you pulled the anti-semitic quotes of Chrysostom(which are not germane to this argument) out of your hat when you couldn't find anything else. It's a James White tactic, and you seemed to know enough about White to judge his sister in an earlier post, so I assumed you knew a lot about him. If I was wrong, I'm sorry.
Again, you need to read before you make your audacious claims. That, and you need to bone up on what sola scriptura really means before you start bashing it.>
I've read Luther's writings on the subject, I've read the whole of "Calvin's Institutes". I think I know what Sola Scriptura is, thanks. Or is there some new twist I'm missing that has been invented since their deaths?
Oh, and I haven't lost on the main issues, merely pointed out that you don't understand them and that you refuse to accept the plain meaning of both scripture and the early fathers.
Yeah, I don't accept the plain meaning of the Fathers and don't understand them when they agree time and time again with Sacramental and Catholic theology. The key to understanding them is a few isolated quotes that can be ripped out of context and that don't explicitly contradict the ancient beliefs of the Western and Eastern Churches. YOU, however, understand them all with clarity.
Please.
Matthew 16 lays out the case best - it is an extremely rich text.
We can discuss it point by point if you wish.
There is an excellent book which makes the full Scriptural case for papal infallibility entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys.
There is also a good summary here by Dave Armstrong, a lay Catholic biblical scholar.
I'm not familiar with the ECF package, but I'm referring to the Second Discourse Against the Arians chapter 70.
Is that what I wrote ?
I don't think so.
I wrote that the entire Roman culture and civilization was permeated by many Gentile religions because they conquered many nations. It was natural for that civilization to integrate and synthesize these faiths and yet another faith from a conquered nation (that of the Jews) into its own panoply. It took time. There was resistance. It was quite an accomplishment to be recognized by the Roman Empire as the official Religion. One can see the stark differences that ensued from the time of the Jewish Apostles to the full development of the religious system.
I realize it is your position that there were no changes in substance or doctrine between that of the Jewish Apostles throughout the centuries. To do so would question what is arguably the most important tenet of your religion, that the Roman Catholic Church is the only authorized representative of Yeshua and that the authority to rule on matters of faith and doctrine was handed down in succession from one pope to another without error. I hold another view. It is obvious to me that the papal succession that ensued is not what Yeshua or the Apostles intended. I see it as a natural development and extension of Roman civilization which had the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them. It was natural for that culture to survive and thrive after the synthesis and integration, and even after the collapse of what we know as the Roman Empire. We will just have to disagree.
Are you guys sure about that quote? I've found the Four Discourses against the Arians, and they are written at the time of about 360 A.D. However, I can't find where they are attributed to Athanasius, nor can I find a chapter 70 in Discourse II (it only goes up to chapter 17 in that particular discourse). The only quote that I can find that is relevant to the discussion is this one:
Thus then the Lord also, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all, grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth, that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and might rise from the dead.
--Dicourse II, chapter 14.7
While this asserts Mary's virginity at the time of Christ's birth, it says nothing about perpetual virginity.
I also tried entering the phrase "ever-virgin" into my search engine, and while I did find a number of references, those with definite dates attached to them are all from the late fourth century or later, and none are attributed to Athanasius.
Perhaps you could provide for us a source and a fuller quote that would give me more keywords to try to search for.
You wrote a post about fearing to oppose the power of the Emperor in response to a post I wrote about Pope Victor I in 190 A.D. It certainly looked like you were referring to what I wrote in my post.
It is obvious to me that the papal succession that ensued is not what Yeshua or the Apostles intended.
And it obvious to me that Jesus gave special privileges to Peter and the Apostles in the Gospels, and that the early Church accepted those perogatives from the earliest time. So we agree to disagree.
Yes it is. To quote Peter himself:
You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house . . . Therefore, it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."One problem: Jesus spoke Aramaic.Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."
1 Peter 2:5, 6-8
A second problem: We don't have Jesus' words recorded for us in Aramaic. What we do have is Matthew's Greek Gospel, which makes a distinct difference. Perhaps our Lord said, "You are little Cephas, and on this cephas (as He points to Himself) I will build My church . . ." and Matthew used the different Greek words to indicate the difference. We can't know why Matthew made a distinction, but he did, and if we accept that the Holy Spirit had a hand in our Bibles, then we have to accept that that distinction is important.
Our mutual source of authority in this debate is written in Greek. You cannot cite a non-existant Aramaic translation in any legitimate discussion of the subject. Catholicism runs afoul of the same problem on the issue of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Yes, the Aramaic can be used for cousins or other close relatives, but the Greek manuscripts that we actually have make a distinction, and they definitely say "brothers" and "sisters."
You've not even touched on my most important argument, however, so let me repeat it here: Of the dozens of times that the Bible uses "stone" or "rock" to refer symbolically to someone, it always uses them of our Lord! Every single time! For Jesus to say that Peter is really the Rock on whom the Church rests would be a break with every other use of the symbol in Scripture--and Peter himself tells us that the Rock that is the cornerstone of the Church is Christ, not himself!
So, no, I don't accept Rome's spiritual authority on the basis of Matthew 16, nor should anyone. The Church is not a place, it is a spiritual body of the redeemed, with Christ--not Peter and not Peter's supposed successors--as its only head.
Here is a link to a page about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. It has many quotes from the Fathers on Our Lady's virginity,and also on James and the other "brothers of the Lord" being the children of Joseph from a previous marriage:
http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/Mary_files/Mary.htm
Really? I had all sorts of aspersions made on my character by stating the same fact! LOL! Surely it must be a problem with your software package because today's Catholic church asserts that Mary's perpetual virginity has always been believed, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Maybe you need the special Magisterium 4.0 upgrade.I couldn't find his quote from Athanasius either but didn't press the point. I wouldn't be surprised if he said it but my point all through this thread is that the Catholic Church has done a lot of picking and choosing amongst doctrines that supposedly had the "unanimous consent of the fathers."
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.