Posted on 04/05/2005 11:13:00 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
While some Jewish leaders want the next pope to pity the Jews, what we need is a partner against secularism.
Bill Clinton was called the nation's first black president, in recognition of African-Americans’ sense that he unfailingly identified with their concerns. If Clinton deserved this tribute, then John Paul II could be called the first Jewish pope—at least the first since ancient times (when the very earliest church leaders were all Jews by birth). In John Paul II, Jews found a wellspring of anguished sympathy, and repentance, for the centuries of suffering of God's ancient servant, Israel, at the hands of Christians.
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
Thanks. Upon reading the whole article, and not just the anti-Catholic rants of CINO Carroll, it is fascinating.
The chutzpah of this demand that Catholics (and other Christians) change their very religion in response to Jewish sensitivities is rarely addressed either by Christians or by Jews. What would the Anti-Defamation League say if the pope insisted that the Jews repudiate the more troubling teachings in our own Talmud—for example, about Jesus, his execution at the hand of a Jewish court and subsequent punishment in hell?
I had heard this alleged before, is this in the Talmud?
"Judaism is not about suffering. It is, in the final analysis, about spreading knowledge of the God of Israel to the world.
That is by no means what Judaism is "about" and never was."
That may not be what it was like in Jesus' time and it may not be what Judaism is like now, however, the point is that this is what Judaism was always meant to be, and the story of the OT really revolves around their failure to achieve this.
Rather than the Jews evangelising the gentiles, for the main part they kept being reverse-evangelised and ended up chasing after the gentile gods rather than remaining faithful to Yahweh. The solution that the Pharisees ultimately found to this problem was one of ethnic and ritual separation both from gentiles and even from Jews who mixed with gentiles - if they remained aloof and separate then they couldn't be tempted by the gentile gods and customs. But at the same time this meant that the Pharisees (and consequently modern Judaism) abandoned their mission from God, and cut themselves off from the very people that God wanted them to evangelise - they wanted to keep God and His law for themselves, keep it perfectly, but not take it to those who needed it.
This is one of the main reasons why Jesus was so angry with the Pharisees - their mission was meant to be universal, but they did everything they could to frustrate its universality and remain insular and separate instead.
This intended universal mission of the Jews is revealed all the way back in Genesis when God makes His promises to Abraham - "All nations shall be blessed through your seed."
I had heard this alleged before, is this in the Talmud?
This is nothing. There are many parts of the Talmud that would horrify any decent human being, nevermind Christians. I won't post such here because it's truly hard to read and doing so would be unfair to the majority of Jews who don't attach themselves to such nonsense.
That being stated, does it somehow surprise you that the Jews - who gave us our Redeemer - completely reject him? Why do you think our Church used to pray for them? Ending this practice was an act not of charity but of contempt.
It used to be doctrinal to love and pray for them, now unfortunately it's doctrinal to completely ignore them.
However, Deuteronmy 4:19 and Malachi 1:11.
God's grace....
Which is exactly what happened. Christ came from the house of David, civilized the planet and is now known to nearly human being that walks the earth. Putting aside Christian teaching, it's a simple historical fact that it is through Christ that we bring humanity to God. Not only a historical fact but apparantly some sort of scientific dynamic.
One can't help but appreciate this author's outreached hand, it is indeed refreshing despite some of his awkward views on Catholicism.
BOOO!
My comdolences to you on the loss of your Pope Pol I.
Hope all's well.
Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
LOL. How nice it is to hear from you Matt, I was thinking of you very recently. I'm not sure who "Pope Pol "I is, but thank you anyway.
Pope Pol I: The 1st Polish Pope.
I wanted to call you in the morning but I don't think I have your number.
Freep mail it if you can please.
"Which is exactly what happened."
Exactomundo! The old Israel failed to bring the blessings of the Old Covenant to all mankind so God Himself had to come as the son of David and Son of Abraham in order to get the job done through the New Covenant.
But what I find interesting in the article is that it is the first time I have seen a modern-day Jew acknowledging that this was the intended mission for the Jews at the outset.
You already do. Everyone believes the Jews were right "at one time." The question is, at what point does this "cut off?" Your claim is that it cut off two thousand years ago. I'm sure you think that non-Jews who lived before J*sus' time had no reason to complain about not being chosen. So your argument against "bloodline theology" essentially is a non-argument. Your problem isn't its truth but at what point it allegedly ceased to be true. You might also like to read essay at my web site. Er, you might have to click on it more than once if pop ups get in the way.
Forget the Church, Christ Himself teaches us that this is wrong.
So the Revelation at Sinai gave a law at Sinai that defined a Jew as anyone born of a Jewish mother (and please don't assume a sola scriptura argument here) and J*sus contradicted it. Now let's see. Either one has to assume a priori that J*sus had the authority of abrogate the "old testament" or else he is a false prophet. And since a priori assumptions constitute a logical fallacy . . . well, you know.
A "Jew" is someone whose mother is Jewish. One can be a wiccan and be a Jew yet if he converts to Christianity he's no longer a Jew. Another can lead his life in strict accordance to God's law in the Old Testament and not be one of "God's chosen people" because of how he was born.
The Jews are a nation, not an abstract universal body with the same philosophy. The Torah is a covenant with this nation. The Torah defines anyone born of a Jewish mother as a Jew regardless of his religious belief or lack thereof (and I've always disagreed with those who insist that Jews who convert to chr*stianity are less Jewish than Jewish atheists). Non-Jews have always been permitted to convert to Judaism, however, and become full Halakhic Jews. G-d does not demand this of non-Jews, and the convert is first dicouraged up to three times. After this he is encouraged. The `amidah prayer recited three times a day on weekdays contains a prayer for the gerim, the converts.
It is.... prodigal son. The temple was destroyed 70 years after our Savior's death and Israel was shortly thereafter abandoned. The Jewish people were left scratching their heads wondering how they were going to get around defunct Mosaic animal sacrifice laws. He's not called "The Light of the World" for nothing you know.
Since they'd had to "get around" this identical problem after the Babylonians destroyed the Holy Temple I imagine they had a pretty good idea what they'd have to do. Or perhaps the first destruction meant the messiah had actually come in the days of Nebuchadnezzar?
While the Jews (in my meaningless opinion) should be left alone to cultivate Israel, they should not ever have full exclusive title to Jerusalem. There lies sacred real estate to be claimed by many.
You mean it even belongs to the moslems too? My, but you're ecumenical.
It's really too bad that the Catholic Church can't be as dogmatic about Biblical inerrancy as it is about its supercession of the Jews. Everything in the Hebrew Bible has to be submitted to science and reason before it can be believed (and the Catholic Church is the number one promoter of "theistic evolution" and Biblical criticism in the world), but there will never be a similar second look at supercessionism. It's amazing how even the most "modern" religions (and Catholicism is hepper than Leonard Cohen compared to Fundamentalist Protestantism) can be dogmatic when it really wants to. I guess there's just nothing to be gained by defending the "old testament." Perhaps the Church takes comfort from "scientific" demythologization" as legitimating its claim to have replaced it?
Long time no see my favorite FR prodigal son! I pray often for you and hope that you will someday know the real faith of the Catholic Church you left.
(I know, it's out of order!)
Be`ein chazir (that means "ain't gwine happen"). Why in the world would I want to be thrown into that state of constant spiritual turmoil again? Your Church is going down in flames (well, except for its supercessionist claim). Your priests don't believe your own dogmas (as I know by personal experience), and after your church stabbed me in the back when I really needed its support, I'd rather enter a sikh temple than one of your churches (and I can't do that, either). Contrary to your above claim about "blood theology," your church does believe in it. Only thing is, instead of the Jews (the nation that is actually the subject of the Bible) you have the Poles, the Hispanics, the French, the Belgians, the Italians, the Ukrainians, the Filipinos, the Lithuanians, and above all the Irish. These are G-d's Catholic people. If you're born into one of these you're part of the family. If you're a Bible Belt redneck who overcomes a lifetime of prejudice in order to submit to the Roman Church and you have trouble with evolution and the Bible being mythology, then you're a laughable little cracker whose suffering amuses the "real" Catholics. No sir, your Church is not and never has been universal. It's just as ethnic as any other religion. It is an urban, ethnic, and over-intellecutal religion whose members and leaders hold the simple people of the rural American Heartland in absolute and total contempt and if I had my way not a single one of us would ever even consider it again. But other people who won't profit by my example will just have to learn the hard way, like I did. And find out they will, unless they choose to sell out.
Really, what is your supercessionism but another form of scientific criticism and modern rejection of the "old testament?"
Finally, even if Catholicism wasn't to the Left of John Shelby Spong (which it is as far as I'm concerned), there is still the contradiction of "preaching Judaism to the Protestants and Protestantism to the Jews." If Protestants are wrong to believe in "faith only," if G-d demands works and rituals, why shouldn't they be the work and rituals one actually reads of in the Bible instead of a post-Biblical system which the Bible merely "prefigured?" In other words (and I don't know if you, never having been a Fundamentalist Protestant, will even understand this), Catholic arguments against Protestantism legitimate Jewish arguments against Catholicism. What, you didn't know that? Hey, you guys taught me that G-d judges us by our works and that the Bible alone doesn't constitute the totality of G-d's Revelation. Why should I now go back to a halfway house after making drawing the ultimate conclusions?
Here are two more essays (I, II) in which I make a few more points apropos to the subject of Catholicism's inherent contradiction. Kindly read them.
OK, thanks for the heads-up. I will read it.
"If you're a Bible Belt redneck who overcomes a lifetime of prejudice in order to submit to the Roman Church and you have trouble with evolution and the Bible being mythology, then you're a laughable little cracker whose suffering amuses the "real" Catholics."
Why do you say that the Catholic Church teaches evolution and that the Bible is myth? Neither of these statements is correct.
I am a Catholic clergyman and I totally reject evolution and I consider anybody who does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to be a heretic - as the Church teaches.
Have you had a run-in with some intellectual midgets who were masquerading as Catholics at some point?
I can't address all of this as my time is limited, but I will tell you that I've been thinking of you. I would have been able to let your post stand unanswered if it hadn't been for one sentence:
...and after your church stabbed me in the back when I really needed its support
The "Church" contrary to popular belief is not her hirlings, priests or her earthly bureaucracy in Rome. The definition of the "Church" encompasses all under our triune God's perview. It consists of those in heaven, those on earth and those attached to Him elsewhere. We're a family - children of God. We pray for, care about and love each other.
So while certain churchmen may have wronged you, it is completely impossible for the church to have stabbed you in the back.
While many of your observations of the dire state of the modern church are correct, it is apparant from your posts that although you may have been baptized and/or confirmed you never learned nor had the faith.
It's not your fault - you're a victim of one of the thousands of miserable apostate factories that have lost so many. You have come to believe such was the "church" or worse the faith itself. This is a source of great pain not only for us that are left to watch you walk away, but more importantly for God.
I don't know if you trust enough to explain more of the bad experience you had. If so please FReepmail me, I would feel very blessed if you did.
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.