Posted on 01/20/2005 1:10:49 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
If I understand you, for Jews the Torah is the Logos. Christians would say that, since all divine acts are perfect, the Logos is a perfect utterance of God. In other words, the Logos is complete and definitive: it is all that God will ever have to say. Moreover, because God speaks perfectly, the Logos is a perfect utterance of God's mind, perfectly conforming to his will. As you may know, the Gospel of John proclaims that since the Logos was with God at the beginning and because all things are created through the utterance of God, the Logos is God.
I am mystified by your claim that Catholicism is hostile to miracle claims (indeed, we do not consider the eucharist a miracle at all, for miracles are concerned with the appearances of things, and in the eucharist these remain unchanged). Where on earth can you have got that idea? I'm no less surprised by your view that Christians view the Pentateuch as crude -- Scripture 1.0, as it were. I assure you the Catholic Church views and venerates Sacred Scripture as a whole. We say that Revelation achieves its pinnacle not in the books of the New Testament, but in the person of Jesus.
No wonder chr*stians interpret the words of Holy Prophets as predicting a new system (G-d forbid).
Interpret this, then:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall by my people.” (Jer. 31:31-33).
I assume you hold that this New Covenant has not yet been proclaimed. But how can you say that Jews do not even look for it?
“Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David” (Is. 55:3, see Acts 13:34).
So the New Covenant is to be (by contrast with what came before) eternal. IOW, a "new system".
Furthermore, this new covenant will include not only Israel, but the whole world:
“It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (Is. 49:6).
“Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth in to singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife...For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited” (Is. 54:1,3).
I call your attention in particular to Isaiah's prophecy above, that in the messianic kingdom, God's law will be written no longer on stone tablets but in the human heart.
The First Revelation is certain and objective.
I think we can agree that the Logos is certain and objective. Christians find this revelation, present at the beginning, in a Person.
Till then!
He declares that the Lord enjoys a pure oblation from east to west, does he not? And does he not go on to declare that the Lord is displeased with sacrifices from the hands of the priests of Israel? What, then, is the source of these acceptable sacrifices, if not Gentile hands?
I look forward to hearing from you next week. Have a good Sabbath.
Malakhi 1:11 nowhere mentions a sacrifice "coming from gentile hands."
He declares that the Lord enjoys a pure oblation from east to west, does he not? And does he not go on to declare that the Lord is displeased with sacrifices from the hands of the priests of Israel? What, then, is the source of these acceptable sacrifices, if not Gentile hands?
So you admit this is an assumption on your part.
The Jewish people have been scattered to the four corners of the earth and among all other nations. There they are purified and so magnify the name of G-d "among the gentiles."
Now I will begin the task of responding to your message from last week.
You are imposing your chr*stian assumptions on what I am saying. The Torah was written by G-d "974 generations before the Creation" and then dictated to Moses letter for letter.
If I understand you, for Jews the Torah is the Logos. Christians would say that, since all divine acts are perfect, the Logos is a perfect utterance of God. In other words, the Logos is complete and definitive: it is all that God will ever have to say. Moreover, because God speaks perfectly, the Logos is a perfect utterance of God's mind, perfectly conforming to his will. As you may know, the Gospel of John proclaims that since the Logos was with God at the beginning and because all things are created through the utterance of God, the Logos is God.
And as you may know, the gospel of John holds no authority for me.
The "logos" was a Greek philosophical concept that was adapted by chr*stianity to explain the place of J*sus in teh "gxdhead." In adapting it to their needs the chr*stians of necessity made it different from its original philosophical meaning. When I say "the Torah is the logos" I am likewise adapting that term, which means that I am de-chr*stianizing (as well as de-paganizing) it.
The Torah is the logos in that it is the Divine blueprint, the Divine Wisdom (as described in Proverbs), the "DNA" of creation. I do not mean it is a member of a "trinity" or any such thing. If you are going to impose chr*stian understandings on everything I say, then of course you will win the argument (in your own mind).
I am mystified by your claim that Catholicism is hostile to miracle claims (indeed, we do not consider the eucharist a miracle at all, for miracles are concerned with the appearances of things, and in the eucharist these remain unchanged). Where on earth can you have got that idea?
Why do you folks keep asking this? Are you all members of some unknown "Catholic Church" in another universe or something?
Every Catholic Biblical commentary since the old Douay-Rheims is higher critical. Every bishop is higher critical. Every Catholic publication (with very few exceptions, which are themselves accused of "Protestantizing" tendencies) promote higher criticism and the documentary hypothesis. Have you never in your life picked up a copy of Liguorian? Of Catholic Digest? Our Sunday Visitor? Of US Catholic? Of even such ultra-conservative apologetical publications as This Rock or Catholic Answers or even New Oxford Review or The Wanderer (which has, I have been told, published an article endorsing evolution)? In fact, most of the time after you Catholics accuse me of sheer fantasy in what I am charging you immediately begin defending evolution and/or the documentary hypothesis. In which case I get my ideas from people like you.
Jim Auer had a whole series of articles in Liguorian "defending" Biblical stories to young people by insisting they were didactic myths and parables. The official newspaper of my own diocese (back when I was a member of the Church) not only called for the teaching of the documentary hypothesis in public schools (whatever happened to "separation of church and state, eh?) but said that from now on the Catholic Church would concentrate its outreach to "intellectuals" and let people who believe in the supernatural gravitate to the Fundamentalist churches.
Perhaps you have never heard of the late Archbishop Whelan of Hartford, Connecticut, but I engaged in a correspondence with him (and I still have his letters) in which he attacked "fundamentalism" and defended evolution, mythology, the documentary hypothesis, the whole shebang (he also taught this in an article in Catholic Digest). And this same late, unlamented archbishop at one time actually crowed about the fact that the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock had joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit to keep creationism out of the Arkansas classrooms.
Okay. Here's the point where you respond by defending all these things (after asking me where I found them!).
I'm no less surprised by your view that Christians view the Pentateuch as crude -- Scripture 1.0, as it were.
Then why do you insist it was temporary and preparatory, and that all its commandments (without a word about their temporariness) may be reinterpreted in light of the allegedly higher scripture of the Prophets and Psalms? You begin with the bedrock and work up to the pinnacle. Traditional Judaism says the pinnacle is the bedrock and interprets the Prophets in light of the Torah, not vice versa.
I assure you the Catholic Church views and venerates Sacred Scripture as a whole.
That's a good one!
Seriously now, how can you say this with a straight face (especially since you've probably just finished typing up a defense of evolution and higher criticism of the Bible)?
We say that Revelation achieves its pinnacle not in the books of the New Testament, but in the person of Jesus.
Same thing. You consider the Torah temporary and "preparatory" to something greater to come later.
No wonder chr*stians interpret the words of Holy Prophets as predicting a new system (G-d forbid).
Interpret this, then:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall by my people.” (Jer. 31:31-33).
This is where hermeneutical assumptions come in. If you assume that the Prophets are a higher form of Revelation than the Torah you will see them as modifying it. But if you see them as subservient to it, then you will see something quite different.
I first note that the prophecy speaks of a new covenant with the Israel and Judah, not a "new covenenant people," though of course if you have chr*stian assumptions you will have to apply this as referring "mystically" to the Church.
If one (as I do) adheres to the concept that the Torah is the Pinnacle rather than the mere bedrock of Revelation (and that "Israel" and "Judah" are to be interpreted literally), then there are two possible interpretations. One is when "`Ezra' gave the Torah a second time." Up until this point there was a great deal of `avodah zarah in the world and in Israel, and one purpose of prophecy was to counteract that. But at this point in history (in answer to the prayers of Israel's Sages) the spirit of idolatry was greatly lessened in the world and removed from Israel, which means that prophecy would not be needed to counteract it (though both will of course make a comeback). After the days of Ezra the idolatry of which one reads so much in the Hebrew Bible ceased to exist in Israel (the "new testament" perspective is that now the Torah had become Israel's "idol" since they stubbornly refused to "recognize the messiah"). Moreover the piety that had been heretofore been practiced by a righteous "remnant" amidst a sinful people was extended to the entire nation, making the entire nation one of pious scholars--a situation that existed until the dawn of the modern "enlightenment." While Israel was plagued by idolatry throughout the Biblical period one sees the emergence of this pious nation, free of idolatry and all studying Torah (if this isn't "writing His law on their hearts" what is?). It was also in the days of Ezra that the purified nation was deemed worthy of writing the Torah in the original Heavenly alphabet rather than the Canaanite derived one that had been used since the breaking of the First Tablets of the Law. This alphabet, knowledge of which had been restricted to only a few, was now the exclusive alphabet of the entire Nation.
Okay; that's one possible interpretation. Another is that it refers to the coming of Mashiach HaMelekh when the evil inclination will be removed from mankind altogether and all the entire world will follow G-d's will (this did not happen at the coming of J*sus, since the evil inclination still exists and G-d's will has not yet triumphed).
At any rate, I hope you will see that one's assumptions about the Torah determine one's interpretation of the prophecies . . . and as the Torah nowhere contains a reference to its being temporary or replaced by something else, then these concepts are based on the assumtpion that the Prophets can modify the Torah.
While I can't endorse 'Aish HaTorah completely (they're a little too "modern" for my tastes), I nevertheless recommend you read this article at their site in order to understand the Jewish position that Sinai, not J*sus, was the fulcrum of history which illuminated and defined all that came before and all that has and will come after.
I assume you hold that this New Covenant has not yet been proclaimed. But how can you say that Jews do not even look for it? “Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David” (Is. 55:3, see Acts 13:34).
So the New Covenant is to be (by contrast with what came before) eternal. IOW, a "new system".
Thus, your assumptions lead to your position that this "simply must" be true.
Furthermore, this new covenant will include not only Israel, but the whole world:
“It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (Is. 49:6).
Once again, the Catholic Church de-literalizes this prophecy, since it speaks of Israel as being a light to the gentiles. And there is a universal covenant: that of Noah. This is G-d's covenant with all non-Jewish humanity, and the Noachide laws are non-Jewish humanity's moral obligations/religion. The Jews are to teach these to the Nations of the World, and when the true Mashiach comes all the world will follow G-d's will (again, this has not yet happened). Mainline (non-Fundamentalist) chr*stianity has always de-literalized these messianic prophecies, because it has to. If interpreted literally, the messianic advent simply has not occurred. (Fortunately for them, Fundamentalist Protestants are much more literal. They insist that the "first advent" was to pay the sin debt only, with the messianic kingdom not founded until the "second" coming.)
“Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth in to singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife...For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited” (Is. 54:1,3). I call your attention in particular to Isaiah's prophecy above, that in the messianic kingdom, God's law will be written no longer on stone tablets but in the human heart.
I think I dealt with this already, though I must point out again that your assumptions that the Catholic Church are the fulfillment of these prophecies are based on a de-literalization of them, thus illustrating that your interpretation of the "old testament" is based on your prior assumption of the validity of the "new." This is a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent."
The First Revelation is certain and objective.
I think we can agree that the Logos is certain and objective. Christians find this revelation, present at the beginning, in a Person.
You are simply pointing out that neither the Torah nor J*sus were given to 'Adam in the Garden but that each came into history later. As I have said, the argument between Judaism and chr*stianity is whether the Torah or J*sus constitutes the "fulcrum of history," the final, definitive Revelation that authorizes everything that came before as well as everything that comes after. Since the Torah was given prior to J*sus, since it nowhere even hints at temporariness (and chr*stians have to invoke the "higher" Prophets and then deliteralize the prophecies), then the Torah has a much better claim at being this "fulcrum." One must either interpret J*sus in light of the Torah or Torah in the light of J*sus. Which came first? And why does this first revelation not even seem to provide for its supercession by something higher? Chronologically the Torah wins the argument, and if it is the Ultimate Revelation then J*sus must be rejected. And I once again refer you to the article hyperlinked above.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope you will come to see that the claims of chr*stianity are nothing like as "obvious" as you hold them to be. In fact, the Jewish arguments against chr*stianity are eerily similar to Catholicism's arguments against Protestantism. If Catholic arguments against Protestantism are valid, then so are Judaism's against chr*stianity. If Judaism's arguments against chr*stianity are invalid, then you will have to investigate the claims of Protestantism!
Um, no. Assumptions are unsupported postulates. What I'm stating is a deduction, the ineluctable product of a logical reading of the text.
If you're looking for an assumption, look at your claim that the Jewish people are purified as a consequence of having been scattered. And if you're looking for anti-logic, look at your assumption that: 1. this diaspora magnification of the name of God comes from the hands of priests, and 2. that contrary to Scripture this non-sacrifice from non-priests constitutes a pure oblation.
If you're looking for an assumption, look at your claim that the Jewish people are purified as a consequence of having been scattered. And if you're looking for anti-logic, look at your assumption that: 1. this diaspora magnification of the name of God comes from the hands of priests, and 2. that contrary to Scripture this non-sacrifice from non-priests constitutes a pure oblation.
You know, that's not much of a come-back.
In logic there are two no-no's. One is denial of the antecedent. The other is affirmation of the consequent. The antecedent in this case is the Torah, given to Israel at Mt. Sinai. This Torah nowhere says anything about being temporary, preparatory, or any such thing. If you read the Torah and accept its words at face value you will see that the Jewish people were to close their minds and ears to any other religion. You have studiously avoided responding to my point that the Torah is supreme and the Prophets subordinate. You have avoided dealing with the fact that in order for the Catholic Church to be the "fulfillment" of the prophecies about Israel being re-gathered under David, they must be completely de-literalized.
Frankly, the Torah given at Sinai made it impossible for any faithful G-d fearing Jew to convert to chr*stianity. You may argue all you want about the Paul's "schoolmaster" thesis, but the fact is that the people who were given the "schoolmaster" didn't learn the lesson and the people who learned it never had the schoolmaster.
I also notice I seemed to have silenced your claims of the Catholic Church venerating Scripture and believing in miracles. At least you had the decency not to bang me over the head with Charles Darwin.
Did you read the article?
I'm busy today, but look forward to continuing this discussion.
Oh good grief. Do you intend to try to convert me by your arguments? I thought Catholics didn't try to convert people (they sure were proud of not being like the "fundies" in that way when I was a member).
Since your every argument is based on the subjecting the Torah to the Prophets rather than vice versa, I suggest that you first tackle the issue of whether this is correct, or whether (as Jewish tradition holds) the Prophets are subject to the Torah. If Torah doesn't even hint at a "new covenant" with a body that supercedes Israel but the Prophets say something that confirms your chr*stian assumptions, what makes you so sure that the Prophet is illuminating the Torah, revealing a new truth, or revealing a theretofore unheard of concept? Why are you so sure that the Torah's supremacy doesn't make such an interpretation of the Prophets absolutely impossible?
Here's my question. Do you hold that the Torah admits to being temporary and preparatory, or do you hold that this doctrine was revealed later by the Prophets and therefore supercedes the Torah's surface claims of permanence?
The Torah came first. Every Prophet, to be accepted, has to submit to it and acknowledge its supremacy and eternity. I find it quite frustrating that instead of answering this objection you simply continue to "proof text" passages of the Prophets ripped out of context and insist that a literal interpretation of Malakhi has to mean the Torah and Israel were superceded. It's especially galling that you, who probably don't even believe the world was created in six days or that Noah's Flood actually happened, are hypocritically defending yourself by invoking "Biblical literalism."
If you think you are competent to interpret the Torah in a way superior to the interpretation of the Sages of Israel, then you owe Martin Luther an apology for asserting that he could interpret the "new testament" better than the church fathers.
Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
Gen. 22:18 And in thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Gen. 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
Deut 18:15ff A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own kinsmen; to him you shall listen. This is exactly what you requested of the LORD, your God, at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let us not again hear the voice of the LORD, our God, nor see this great fire any more, lest we die.' And the LORD said to me, 'This was well said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.' "If you say to yourselves, 'How can we recognize an oracle which the LORD has spoken?', know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the LORD did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him.
ZC, I notice you have no trouble striking an apologetic attitude, though you're (presumably) not trying to convert me. Well, I shall do the same. No more today, though. Gotta hop.
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.