"...Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved,..." Card. Kasper

Catholic News Service ^ | Nov-7-2002 | John Thavis

[malakhi]

BTW, do you have a kosher kitchen? Two refridgerators, two dishwashers, etc.?

I am not an Orthodox Jew. I follow the kosher laws from scripture, but not every detail of rabbinic interpretation.

[Desdemona]

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures which prophecies a second coming of the messiah.

I think this is a New Testament idea. I'll have to look it up for sure.

The primary ones are: world peace, ingathering of Israel, the building of the third temple, and universal knowledge of God. None of these was fulfilled within the lifetime of Jesus, which is why they were either spiritualized or put off for some future 'second coming'.

Hmmm...well, does the Jewish teaching take into consideration (I know a lot of the traditions, but not necessarily teachings) that God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want or what we're looking for? That His will and Kingdom may not be what we expect?

[ksen]

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
(1) Has been validly baptized;
(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Wouldn't that cover every religion on earth? If a Buddhist firmly believes his religion is the true religion will he be saved? What about the Islamist? What about the Hindu? The Satanist?

[malakhi]

Hmmm...well, does the Jewish teaching take into consideration (I know a lot of the traditions, but not necessarily teachings) that God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want or what we're looking for?

I don't see the relevence of the question. If (for example) scripture prophecies that the temple will be rebuilt, and provided a very detailed, physical description of how it will appear, on what basis would we assume that this refers to something spiritual? Is a spiritual reading of Ezekiel 40-48 really the most straightforward one?

[Rambler]

Wouldn't that cover every religion on earth?

Well, no. You forgot the AND. Validly baptized, believes to be practicing the true religion, and dies without mortal sin. All conditions must be met.

[Desdemona]

I don't see the relevence of the question.

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies. You are as well, as the Ezekiel chapters are very detailed, but what if God's temple, wasn't a literal building? And what if the one He sent to redeem us, was really just one us, although divine, not a great monarch with all the trappings. What if God looks at His people in their lowliness and sees good. And sees what He desires His people to be? That may not be what the people want, but that's what God wants.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Let me try and take a stab at this and tell me what you think:


I am going to propose a theory based on the preface that God is eternal and as a result, for Him, linear time does not have the same meaning as it does for those of us who are temporal beings. Because we are temporal beings and He is not, we cannot fully understand how He perceives time.

I would also propose that the God of the Hebrews is the same God of Christianity. I believe that this is also theologically correct.

I am fairly certain you will all agree with these statements above. If not, don't read further.

First, since in the instances of Christians and Jews we are speaking of the same, God, the argument about other religions immediately becomes moot.

Now, several thousand years ago God made a covenant with the Jewish people. There is a sign for this covenant (it is less pleasant than the rainbow of Christianity, but nevertheless it is there). There are laws God gave his people to follow and there are promises he made to them.

Many, many years later, God made a new covenant with the rest of humanity. Sacrificing His son for all. This meant everyone, including Jews.

However, since God is not a being that exists in linear time as we understand it, we certainly cannot assume that a new, unversial convenant rendered the first covenant null and void. In fact, we should assume that a being for whom time is not necessarily linear, would have difficulty undertanding why temporal beings put so much emphasis on it.

To put it succinctly, God does not break his word

Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant.

This only works for Jews, not for other religions.

That's how I see things. It does not contradict the teachings of the Bible because it cannot be understood as a linear progression. The original covenant is as valid as the new.

[Desdemona]

Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant.

I don't think this is incorrect in any way. I'm more curious as to why Christ was rejected as the Messiah and why a Catholic (or Christian) would chose Judiasm. Why must the prophesies be fulfilled to the letter for the Messiah to be accepted?

I believe that God gives us what we need, not what we want. We needed a savior who was humble, meek (sort of), poor, a working man, not a monarch. God's people didn't know that that was what they needed. Even now, they don't accept that. I just want to know why.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I'll be honest with you. I really can't figure out why Jews would not embrace Christ.

Judaism is much more difficult and rigorous and the promised rewards not nearly as great. This is not to mention the opportunity to eat pork and lobster.

I suppose Judaism is somewhat more mystical. Plus, you do what your parents do. But, why a Christian would choose to become a Jew your guess is as good as mine.

Why don't the Jews know what they need? Good question, but it might be part of God's plan. Some have said that the Jews are the people who have been "chosen" to suffer through history. Aside from the Chinese, they are the only other "people" with such a long time-line. They may be there to "teach" the world something.

Here is a theory on which I would like your opinion. Let's say it was God's plan that Christianity spread to the part of the earth that produced the culture that eventually became the basis for the dominant world culture. God knows that for people to live together peacefully they must learn to live with diversity.

The Jews were an "alien" presence in the "Christian World" for the entirety of the religion's existance. There were even times during which there were attempts made to expel and/or exterminate them. But, they survived and have lived to tell the world that intolerance leads to incomprehensible acts and that we must create a culture and a world that never allows that type of thing to ever happen again. If this is true, than God sacrificed 6 million of His people to teach the world that lesson. It is a pretty brutal lesson. The only reconciliation is to say His ways are not our ways.

God may still have further plans for the Jews. But, it has been a very, very short time since the last time God interfered with Jewish history (Think about WWII. It had nothing to do with the Jews. The Holocaust was completely separate and had no affect on the war's outcome. It was merely an event that could only occur during the "fog of war").

This is the closest I can come to an explanation.

I am starting to ramble.

[Desdemona]

Well, my own theory as to why such awful things always happen to the Jews is not one I generally publish. The only thing I'll say is that there is a pattern.

So, with that said, I don't know God's plans. But, other than the letter of the prophesies, why reject Jesus and His teachings?

[malakhi]

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies.

Yes, because that is the most straightforward reading of the scripture. Shall we apply the same standard of spiritualizing to the Christian scriptures? Catholics don't particularly care for Protestant spiritualization of John 6 and Matthew 16:18. In fact, you think they are wrong because they don't interpret these passages literally. Likewise, liberal Christians have 'spiritualized' such Christian doctrines as the incarnation and the resurrection. Matthew Fox and John Shelby Spong do the same thing to the Christian scriptures as orthodox Christianity does to the Hebrew scriptures. Is is right in one case, and wrong in the other? And who makes that determination?

[malakhi]

However, since God is not a being that exists in linear time as we understand it, we certainly cannot assume that a new, unversial convenant rendered the first covenant null and void. In fact, we should assume that a being for whom time is not necessarily linear, would have difficulty undertanding why temporal beings put so much emphasis on it. To put it succinctly, God does not break his word Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant. This only works for Jews, not for other religions. That's how I see things. It does not contradict the teachings of the Bible because it cannot be understood as a linear progression. The original covenant is as valid as the new.

A very interesting way of looking at it. And it does take into account the repeated statements in the Hebrew scriptures that God's covenant with Israel is everlasting.

[malakhi]

I'm more curious as to why Christ was rejected as the Messiah and why a Catholic (or Christian) would chose Judiasm.

If I can point to one passage in scripture that encompasses it entirely from a Jewish perspective, it is:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder,
and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, `Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, `and let us serve them,'
you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. (Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

For a Jew, this is black and white. God expects us to obey His commandments. We are to keep them and cleave to Him, no matter what.

[Desdemona]

Yes, because that is the most straightforward reading of the scripture. Shall we apply the same standard of spiritualizing to the Christian scriptures? Catholics don't particularly care for Protestant spiritualization of John 6 and Matthew 16:18. In fact, you think they are wrong because they don't interpret these passages literally.

Well, Matthew 16:18 is generally taken out of context by protestants. With the verses before and after it, the sentence changes in meaning.

When Jesus speaks, not in terms of a parable, we're not supposed to take it literally?

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a liberal Christian. Most people interested in power (which most liberals are) will change meanings to suit their purposes. That goes for everybody.

[malakhi]

I believe that God gives us what we need, not what we want. We needed a savior who was humble, meek (sort of), poor, a working man, not a monarch. God's people didn't know that that was what they needed. Even now, they don't accept that. I just want to know why.

Likewise, I could say that YOU want a humble, meek, poor, working man savior. Whereas what God wants us to do, and what we need as Jews, is to obey His commandments.

[Desdemona]

Well if that's the case, will the Messiah ever come? And how will you know?

[Desdemona]

Likewise, I could say that YOU want a humble, meek, poor, working man savior.

In God's kingdom, it is not my place to want anything.

Whereas what God wants us to do, and what we need as Jews, is to obey His commandments.

Do what you think you need to do, but you still don't give a good reason for rejecting Christ's teachings.

[malakhi]

I'll be honest with you. I really can't figure out why Jews would not embrace Christ.

Very simply, it is because we do not think Jesus was who people claim him to be.

Judaism is much more difficult and rigorous

It really isn't. To use one example. God commands us not to commit adultery. It is not that difficult to obey this commandment. Christians are likewise expected not to commit adultery. This is no more difficult for a Jew to do than for a Christian. And if we sin, if we fail to obey a commandment, what then? We repent, ask forgiveness, and strive to avoid such sin in the future. Basically the same thing that a Christian does.

and the promised rewards not nearly as great.

Jews believe in a bodily resurrection, and that the righteous of all nations will be in God's presence in Heaven. What more does Christianity have to offer in terms of rewards?

But, why a Christian would choose to become a Jew your guess is as good as mine.

In my case, my father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. I was raised Christian. But according to Jewish law I am Jewish. I began studying Judaism as an adult, when my doubts about the truth of Christian doctrine grew stronger. A Christian converts to Judaism because he rejects the teaching of Christianity and believes Judaism to be true (or closer to truth). No more complicated than that.

[malakhi]

Well, my own theory as to why such awful things always happen to the Jews is not one I generally publish

Uh huh.

But, other than the letter of the prophesies, why reject Jesus and His teachings?

Other than that? Isn't that sufficient? Why do you accept Jesus and the teachings about him?

[malakhi]

Well, Matthew 16:18 is generally taken out of context by protestants.

As are the "proof-texts" Christians cite from the Hebrew scriptures.