Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Jan 31, '12, 2:11 pm
onemangang's Avatar
onemangang onemangang is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoxbar View Post
Yes, I was referring to John Hagee. Someone had mentioned it in my Sunday School class too.
There are a myriad of views in non-catholic Christianity, ranging from dispensationalism to Covenant theology!

If you are seeking to find answers to this question. Explore the major different views.

There are a lot of Presbyterian and Lutheran Scholars that have written on Covenant theology

There are many Evangelical/fundamentalist that have written on Dispensationalism

John Hagee's book you have mentioned would fall under a Two or Dual Covenant Theology I believe it still falls under a dispensational framework of biblical interpretation.

There are many Catholic scholars that cover Covenant theology
I would suggest reading Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis
He goes over Justification, sanctification and God's Covenant relationship that He has with His children. You will see the Catholic view on both Jew and Gentile. I guarantee the book will enrich your faith and draw you closer to our Father!

Personally if you are not comfortable reading Catholic books on such topics, I would look into reading some of the so called "Reformed" views on this subject IE: Presbyterian and Lutheran specifically!

Peace and Love in Christ!
  #17  
Old Jan 31, '12, 11:49 pm
Bezant Bezant is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2010
Posts: 2,671
Religion: Latin Catholic leaning East
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsTheMan View Post
You don't think that the OT is oriented towards the coming of a Saviour, a Messiah?
The majority of it seems to be about staying on God's good side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsTheMan View Post
Then we agree
We wouldn't, even if your point was relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsTheMan View Post
The Mosaic covenant possessed and practiced these three elements and acknowledged them to be their foundation.
It just so happened that at the time they were sojourners in the desert without any huge temple - still, they have sacrifice, priesthood and a kind of makeshift temple.
I think the foundation was God and each other, since that's all they had when they entered the covenant; the sacrifices, priesthood and the makeshift tent holding the Ark took some time get sorted--meaning they're obviously important, but absolutely crucial? I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsTheMan View Post
They longed for a land, and a temple, as did the Jews in Babylon after the destruction of the first temple- but only because there had been no word from God that the covenant was superseded as we know now.
How would they know the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsTheMan View Post
Not at all. I believe that we are the true spiritual inheritors of Abraham and Moses and that they would rather be Catholic that a Talmudic Jew of the 21st century based on the revelation of God. This isn't being presumptuous or anti-Semetic or hateful or anything of the sort. Jews must be converted, as must all people, and it can be shown to them that all things point towards Christ.

We don't need to tread carefully around the fact that Judaism of today, according to Catholic belief, is a false religion. Just as Hinduism and Bhuddism are false religions. This is an objective fact - necessarily implied by Catholic doctrine. Sadly, whenever there is talk of the Jewish faith in any Christian circles there will always be those who think that this is anti-Semitism or that to speak frankly on the issue is insensitive. I don't mean to be insensitive at all, just trying to speak in plain facts. I like Jewish people and I hope that they all convert

Again, this is just all my understanding, which may or may not be accurate in details but in it's broad presentation it must be accurate based on simple Catholic truths. All I wanted to say, in the end, was that Jesus is mankind's Messiah. The scriptures of the Jews clearly prophesy that the Messiah will save all mankind both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus is truly the Messiah prophesied by Jewish scriptures. We should do all we can so that they convert to the Catholic Faith to become one flock under one Shepherd.

I see where this thread is going though so I will exit stage left.
But if we take Catholicism as true, there's something to be said about taking that idea for granted. It's not really necessary, or helpful, IMO, to base that idea with the argument that Judaism is "made-up", even if it's naturally assumed that Judaism is wrong.
  #18  
Old Feb 5, '12, 9:07 pm
Brenda4God Brenda4God is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Posts: 171
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoxbar View Post
I recently read that a very famous Pentacostal pastor wrote a book, "Defending Israel". In this book he makes several claims the Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews. He basically says that the Jews fall under an old covenant with God and us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews. Is this true, I've never heard this before?

I think that's all wrong. There's an article I read in Lay Witness magazine about this:

All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God
  #19  
Old Feb 5, '12, 9:35 pm
PeterGStanley's Avatar
PeterGStanley PeterGStanley is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2011
Posts: 439
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Christ's second coming for us will also be for Israel he will be their Messiah - God does not and will not go back on his promises to Abraham.
  #20  
Old Feb 14, '12, 1:53 pm
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda4God View Post
I think that's all wrong. There's an article I read in Lay Witness magazine about this:

All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God
I would be very careful recommending that article. There are significant errors in it, and conclusions that simply are not Catholic teaching. I'm amazed that they got it published. The authors attempt to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ. That is simply not the case. Jews are loved by God because of the promise to Abraham fulfilled in Christ, like all men, not because of the blood running through their veins. That is why circumcision was superseded, to eliminate the separation. There is no more Jew or Greek for salvation, all men are drawn by Christ, without whom there is no salvation.
  #21  
Old Feb 14, '12, 2:21 pm
Hypnotoad Hypnotoad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2011
Posts: 197
Religion: ☜ ☝☟☞
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoxbar View Post
I recently read that a very famous Pentacostal pastor wrote a book, "Defending Israel". In this book he makes several claims the Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews. He basically says that the Jews fall under an old covenant with God and us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews. Is this true, I've never heard this before?


Well Andrew was a jew and He called Christ the Messiah.


Looks like Christ is the Messiah for all of us.
__________________
  #22  
Old Feb 15, '12, 8:53 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
I would be very careful recommending that article. There are significant errors in it, and conclusions that simply are not Catholic teaching. I'm amazed that they got it published. The authors attempt to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ. That is simply not the case. Jews are loved by God because of the promise to Abraham fulfilled in Christ, like all men, not because of the blood running through their veins. That is why circumcision was superseded, to eliminate the separation. There is no more Jew or Greek for salvation, all men are drawn by Christ, without whom there is no salvation.
I don't mean to side-track the thread, but YanniP (who seems to have joined CAF just to criticize this article) could not have actually read it before making such claims about what it says. Far from attempting "to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ", the article repeatedly rejects the dual-covenant heresy. Here are some quotes from the article:
The New Covenant in Christ has superseded the Mosaic (or “Old”) covenant. The term ‘supersession,’ which was first used by an Anglican minister, has subsequently been used by some Catholics to describe this truth. It appears in no magisterial texts; yet, as originally used, it does accurately describe Catholic teaching.

The first, commonly known as the dual covenant theory, holds not only that the Jewish people retain a special relationship with God (which is true), but also that they have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).

While the Church continues to grapple with certain nuances in the relationship among Jews, Christians, and God, she has never taught the dual covenant theory

the dual covenant theory…fundamentally compromises the Church’s Great Commission, given by Christ (cf. Mt. 28:18–20). Additionally, the public advocacy of this theory has created an unwarranted expectation among our Jewish brethren that in turn leads to their understandable frustration each time the Church reaffirms that the Gospel and the Church are for all men.

the dual covenant theory holds…that [the Jewish people] have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).

The Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Magisterium consistently testify that the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Church is for all men—Jew and Gentile alike.

God has given man one sure path to salvation, and that path is through the definitive and universal covenant in Jesus Christ by means of His Church. It is a serious error to direct anyone away from that sure path, regardless of the intention.

Since Vatican II, in continuity with magisterial teaching such as the Council of Florence (1439) and Mystici Corporis (1943), the Church has consistently reaffirmed the universality of the Gospel and the Church. [11] In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church affirmed that God “chose the race of Israel as a people” and “set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, “all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant” instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), we read that the “Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.”

The specific, external form of the Mosaic covenant—such as the legal prescriptions and the temple sacrifice of animals—was indeed abolished with the commencement of the New Covenant. But the underlying substance—from the moral precepts to the foundational principles of sacrifice and worship—is fulfilled and transformed by Christ. In and through Christ, the Mosaic covenant is thus actualized and subsumed into the New Covenant.
For those who might be interested, I have written another article which lays out additional evidence from Scripture and the Magisterium on this topic here.

But directly to the thread topic, as we said in the article, yes Jesus Christ is most certainly the Messiah for the Jews.
  #23  
Old Feb 15, '12, 6:19 pm
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Mr. Palm, thank you for your reply. I have read your article, hence my comment and concern. Overall, you do a pretty good job in the article, but there is an underlying thread that simply pushes the envelope, into novelty or modernity. For starters, your first point in your reply is simply false and probably more important then it seems. Superseded is used in the Roman Catechism, very clearly in Part II "On the Sacraments." - "Thus much will suffice in explanation of the word Sacrament: and indeed, what we have said applies equally to the Sacraments of the old law: but superseded, as they have been, by the gospel law and grace, instruction regarding them were superfluous." and, in fact, by Pope John Paul II when he stated that the Mosaic Law was superseded, while also differentiating the part I think you are missing - that the fulfillment was of the Abrahamic Covenant, not any part of the Mosaic.(see Redemptoris Mater, Fn 2) For some reason, it appears you are attempting to retain something from the Mosaic Covenant to make Jews special as Jews, which theme runs through your paper, including your misuse of Romans 11:28 which misses that the eternal gifts and call are from the Gospel. Yes Jews are in the family of God, but not because of the lingering of an abrogated and superseded covenant, but because they are of the Imago Dei. Men, like us. But, instead of arguing points, let's keep it simple for this forum. I came up with these points, which I believe are well supported in Catholic Truth. Do you agree or disagree with any?

1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ.
3. As superseeded and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.
4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same.
5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.

Thanks for your time.
  #24  
Old Feb 16, '12, 6:29 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Yanni, you write, "Overall, you do a pretty good job in the article."

I appreciate that. So, I assume you retract this initial statement then?
There are significant errors in it, and conclusions that simply are not Catholic teaching. I'm amazed that they got it published. The authors attempt to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ.
Charges that we "slide in" a heresy are not to be taken lightly. I showed above that we did no such thing. I would ask you please to retract your claim and apologize for making such a rash statement.

Your point about "supersessionism" is also incorrect. The Catholic Church has never used the term "supersessionism" in any magisterial document. Period. You missed that we mentioned footnote #2 of Redemptoris Mater (RM) in "All in the Family", so we were already aware of the use of the English word “supersedes” there. But as we pointed out, there's an important difference between the term "supersede" and the term "supersessionism". “Supersessionism” is a loaded term that means different things to different people, like “proselytism”. See here and here for a discussion of that point. So what we stated is correct: "supersessionism" is a term of non-Catholic origin that has never been used in Catholic magisterial texts. It would be prudent to use more solidly Catholic terms when discussing this issue.

Your citation of the Roman Catechism doesn’t contradict anything we wrote, either. Again, the (English) word used in the translation of the Roman Catechism was “superseded”, not “supersessionism.”

But that's English. That raises the point that we’ve previously mentioned: RM and the Roman Catechism were originally written in Latin, not English. And the Latin word used in RM is “excedat” from “excedere.” This is most commonly translated as “to exceed, leave or pass beyond”. We found no Latin/English dictionary that translates “excedere” specifically as “to supersede.” And the Latin text of the Roman Catechism is unambiguously speaking of the "sacraments" under the Mosaic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant itself. Of course we would agree that the sacraments of the Mosaic Covenant are abolished (sublata sint) by the Sacraments of the New Covenant.

You write, “For some reason, it appears you are attempting to retain something from the Mosaic Covenant to make Jews special as Jews.”

That’s not what we were attempting to do. As we stated in the article, God’s love and concern for the Jewish people pre-dates the Mosaic covenant. It isn’t dependent upon the status of that covenant. St. Paul states that they are most dear for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. Lumen Gentium 16 says that, "in view of the divine choice [electionem], they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29)." Or as Nostra Aetate 4 puts it: “As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds [NB: present tense] the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers”.

For more on the Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” in a certain sense, please read:

Are the Jewish People "Family"?

Regarding Romans 11:28, I invite you to review another article I wrote that goes into greater detail:

Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis

Please pay particular attention to these two sections:

Are the Jewish People "Family"?

Sacred Scripture on the Jews in Salvation History

You write, “Yes Jews are in the family of God, but not because of the lingering of an abrogated and superseded covenant.”

Again, we didn’t write that. We never once made the connection with the Mosaic Covenant that you are inserting into this discussion.

I would also point out that when we used the phrase “Jews as Jews”, all we meant was that God has an abiding interest in His earthly “first-born” (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted. And His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel. Thus the phrase, “Jews as Jews”, as opposed to “only Jews who have become Catholic”. The person you seem to be getting your information from has made much ado about this phrase, but he simply misunderstood our meaning. You might also want to read this section for more on why what we wrote isn’t “spiritual racism”:

Sibling Jealousy and Racism?


~
  #25  
Old Feb 16, '12, 6:45 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Then you write, “and, in fact, by Pope John Paul II when he stated that the Mosaic Law was superseded, while also differentiating the part I think you are missing - that the fulfillment was of the Abrahamic Covenant, not any part of the Mosaic.”

You’re creating a false dichotomy. This is a both/and, not an either/or. The Mosaic covenant was superseded AND fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ. Remember, Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And writing as head of the CDF, our current Holy Father wrote, “In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”

Again - see “fulfilled” and “superseded” in the very same context about the "Sinai covenant". Both/and. Not either/or.

You might want to pick up Many Religions, One Covenant by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. It gives some very helpful insights into the relationship between the covenants.

I would also recommending reading this article, especially the last comment underneath the article by Michael Forrest and me: On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God.

Regarding your following points:

1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.

We already stated exactly this in “All in the Family” Here are our exact words: “the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)” (my emphasis). So, I agree, as long as one does not subscribe to what Cardinal Avery Dulles has described as a “crude” or extreme form of supersessionism. See also the second half of “All in the Family” that begins with “Israel: Irrelevant?”. And I would suggest reading the following for more on that issue: https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556

2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ.

Agreed.

3. As superseeded [sic] and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.

Agreed. But the Church seems to prefer words like “fulfilled” because terms like “abrogated” and “revoked” can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity. For more on that, scroll down to “Revoked?”: https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151556

4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same.

Agreed.

5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.

Agreed. But again, the Church seems to prefer the language of “fulfillment” even in relation to the Mosaic Law. Christ also fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Remember, also, that there were various aspects to the Mosaic Covenant. The Law was one such aspect, but there were also the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, etc. No Catholic should be faulted for choosing to use the same emphases of language that the Church herself uses.

6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.

Unlike the other points, I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question. In fact, to the question, "In your opinion, what is the most explicit Magisterial pronouncement against Zionism?", even Bob Sungenis himself said, "to my knowledge, there is none" (Ask Your Question About the Jews) But please don’t make the false assumption that this means I’m a Zionist. I’m not. I am at best agnostic on the matter. For more on that, read: Are You Anti-Semitic?.

I hope this helps.


~
  #26  
Old Feb 17, '12, 8:36 am
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Mr. Palm,
I was waiting for you to continue the discussion you started on my website (www.catholicintl.com) but since you didn’t come back, I thought I would continue the discussion with you here on the CA forum.

Would be so kind, in light of your above statements, to answer these questions for us so that we can have more clarification of what your precise position is and where it is supported?

If you would also be so kind as to provide concise answers (e.g., a couple of sentences for each question) since that will make the process easier and more productive. I will not be consulting any of your URLs, so you need not provide them. I’m really only interested in the root of your thesis.

#1: Does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that the Mosaic covenant is only partially revoked or fully revoked?

#2: You write: “the Church seems to prefer words like ‘fulfilled’ because terms like ‘abrogated’ and ‘revoked’ can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity.” As such, do you not believe that the Mosaic covenant can be abrogated or superseded and yet still have “organic continuity” in the NT?

#3: If there is an “organic continuity” of the Mosaic covenant, are you suggesting that because this covenant was Jewish in origin it continues organically in the NT specifically to provide a “special relationship” between God and the Jews? If so, where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach this?

#4: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?

#5: How do you interpret passages such as Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9 where Greek words much closer to “abrogate” and “supersede” are used rather than words like “fulfillment” used in Matthew 5:18?

#6: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that all Jews have a special relationship with God, just because they are Jews, and, more importantly, what do you mean by “special relationship”?

#7: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that, as you wrote, all “Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” *in a certain sense*”? More importantly, what does “certain sense” mean?

#8: Since Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 4 are merely quoting Scripture, please tell us how you conclude from these two documents that all Jews still have a “special relationship” with God (after, of course, you define what you mean by “special relationship”). In other words, where does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium confirm your interpretation of these Scripture quotes?

#9: What does it mean when you say: “God has an abiding interest in His earthly ‘first-born’ (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted,” in light of the fact that God has an abiding interest in all people who have not yet converted, e.g., John 3:16?

#10: Why is it that you never mention the distinction that Jesus, St. Paul and the other NT writers make between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel, as for example in Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:5-11?

#11: How can you prove that “and His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel” means that only unconverted Jews have “God’s abiding interest” but that Gentiles do not have “God’s abiding interest,” especially in light of Galatians 3:8: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (RSV)

#12: To the issue about the land of Palestine you write: “I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question.” Before we research that issue, you have not dealt with the Scripture passages on this subject, and the Church holds Scripture as its authority. Those passages are Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8. Would you please interpret those passages for us (the same as you have ventured to interpret other Scriptures without any precise Church exegesis of “official position”)

Thank you for your time,
Robert Sungenis
  #27  
Old Feb 17, '12, 9:13 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Dear Mr. Palm:* Wow, that was a detailed response.* I can’t respond to every statement in this forum, so let me crystallize what I believe you are trying to say and focus on your answer to points 3 and 5.

Instead of relying on terms like superseded, abolished, abrogated or even “died”(See, Redemptoris Mater, Roman Catechism Part III discussing the Third Commandement, Pope Bendict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo 63 and Mystici Corporis Christi 30),* which words the Church has used in discussing the annulment of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, you feel it is too harsh and can lead to misunderstanding?**

I see your position as causing confusion in understanding where the “organic continuity” comes from; Abraham not Moses.* If the Old Law is dead and abolished, we should not allude to any remaining continuity.* The continuity has nothing to do with the law through Moses.*** I think clear statements such as the below from Old Testament theologians Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.* William Heidt are much more helpful:

“When the Gospel began to be preached to all peoples, this “shadow of things to come” Col 2:17 had to pass away.* With Christ’s death the Law was abrogated.* No one insisted upon this truth more resolutely or stated it more clearly than St. Paul. Acts 9:15.* “Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes.” Rm 10:4* The “taskmaster” no longer has any right or power.

*Israel resembled a fig tree with much foliage but no fruit.* Lk 13:6-9.* When toward the end of His mission Jesus found no fruit upon this fig tree, He cursed it and it withered forever, withered to its very roots.* Mt 21:18-20; Mk 11:13-20.* This was the last miracle He worked, the only miracle which was not directed toward gaining souls or alleviating human suffering.* He wept over impenitent Jerusalem, Lk 19:41, and prophesized ruin to the city and its temple.* Mt 24:2, 25:22; Lk 19:42-44.* The Jews believed it sufficient to have Abraham as father; Mt 3:9* they forgot that God’s choice of Abraham was an act of pure grace and that Abraham’s children were obliged to fulfill the divine will even as their forefather did.* Jn 8:39; Mt 3:9 When Israel rejected Him on whose account she had been chosen, she spelt her own rejection;* she became stale salt, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”* Mt 21:43

Through the centuries a good and merciful God struggled, so to speak, for the love of that people, Mt 16:4, punishing them only to shower greater blessings upon them. Mt 46:5* Yet despite all warnings and admonitions Israel “had a face harder than stone and refused to amend.” Jer 5:3; Ez 2:4-5* “Give up!* We want to follow our own evil plans, each one of us wishes to act according to his own stubborn, evil notions.” Jer 18:12* God did not need Israel to realize His work.* He willed to retain the imperishable religious intent of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.* Membership in the new kingdom of God is not dependent upon physical descent form Abraham, Lk 19:9 but upon faith in Jesus and obedience to His words.* We become God’s children through the grace conferred upon the world through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Again, thank you for your long reply and I will study it and reply if it would be fruitful to discuss.*

As for your request to retract my first statement, I do retract and apologize for stating “slide in the recent heresy”, I still hold that you create an ambiguity which can lead to error and to a false understanding of covenant theology.*

*
  #28  
Old Feb 17, '12, 11:55 am
Zundrah's Avatar
Zundrah Zundrah is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2009
Posts: 5,069
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoxbar View Post
I recently read that a very famous Pentacostal pastor wrote a book, "Defending Israel". In this book he makes several claims the Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews. He basically says that the Jews fall under an old covenant with God and us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews. Is this true, I've never heard this before?
News to me.

I thought the Gentiles were a "denomination/sect" (if that's the right term to use) of Jews?
__________________


My faith doesn't die. It just... temporarily... breaks...
  #29  
Old Feb 17, '12, 7:07 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

I hope that this is all still sufficiently on-topic for this thread. I guess we'll let the moderators decide that.

Bob Sungenis wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
I was waiting for you to continue the discussion you started on my website (www.catholicintl.com) but since you didn’t come back, I thought I would continue the discussion with you here on the CA forum.
Bob, you were editing out the portions of my comments you didn't want your readers to see, censored another comment wholesale, and limited me to 1000 characters per posting while permitting longer responses to yourself. Would you be inclined to continue under those circumstances were the roles reversed?

You also wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
I will not be consulting any of your URLs, so you need not provide them.
I think this hits on the crux of the problem. You've said several times in the past that you don't want to read what we've written. On those occasions when you change your mind and choose to read a particular piece, you do so selectively, in isolation and with your own pre-conceived notions about what we supposedly believe or who we are. For example, in a recent piece, it’s clear that you thought I was Zionist -- which is false. In another recent piece at your website you went so far as to suggest, yet again, that Michael Forrest may actually be a Jew who is just hiding his identify. You also don’t read the links within the articles or related pieces that clarify our views. As a result of all these things, you end up frequently misrepresenting us and critiquing a straw man.

Here's what I propose to both you and your friend, YanniP. Please read (or re-read, as the case may be) the following pieces charitably (including the footnotes):

All in the Family: Christians, Jews, and God

On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God (please also read the last long comment for further clarifications)

A Response to Robert Sungenis' Critique of our Lay Witness Article

There is also more detailed analysis of the biblical and magisterial aspects of these questions here and I will be referring to the arguments made in that article in any subsequent discussion we might have.

Finally, please review what Michael Forrest and I have written specifically about “supersessionism” :

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151555

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151556

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...essionismAgain

Then, if you still have specific questions perhaps we can discuss them charitably here.

I actually think that we’re quite close in many respects on these issues. In fact, I noticed that you mentioned the same thing in one of your own recent comments at your website.

But at the very least I think it's only fair that you actually read what we’ve already written before we discuss things further.

YanniP wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
As for your request to retract my first statement, I do retract and apologize for stating “slide in the recent heresy”, I still hold that you create an ambiguity which can lead to error and to a false understanding of covenant theology.
I appreciate this. Thank you. I understand the potential for misunderstanding, although I think what we've written, taken all together, is clear. But please understand that it goes both ways--extremely anti-Jewish rhetoric can lead to serious misunderstandings as well. I think I'll hold off for now commenting further until you and Mr. Sungenis have a chance to read in more detail. Hopefully the links I provided will address your questions, but if not, then we may be able to address them subsequently. Understand, of course, that I also have some questions of my own.
  #30  
Old Feb 21, '12, 6:29 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Dear Mr. Palm:
“On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.” Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Chrisiti, 30
I have read your referenced articles and commentaries identified above. I believe I understand your positions more clearly. I do see that we are saying much of the same thing, but you insinuate and imply much more.
Here is my summary: On the one hand, there are proponents of “supersessionism”, who hold to the Church’s defined, Magisterial, statements that the Mosaic Covenant is “superseded”, “abolished”, “abrogated” or has “died”. ”(See, Redemptoris Mater Ft 2; Roman Catechism, Part III, The Third Commandment; Pope Benedict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo, 63; and Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 30). They submit that God desires all men to be saved, Jew or Greek, with no racial partiality. On the other hand, we have proponents of a new thought as described by you in the above articles, what I shall term “anti-supersessionism”, which holds that the Jewish people are still “chosen” and maintain a special relationship with God, although it is non-salvific. These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a “special relationship” with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets of anti-supersessionism are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.
The real debate is centered on what remains of the Mosaic Covenant. Unknowingly, I believe I relayed the question at issue in quoting Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.William Heidt, who aptly stated: “God did not need Israel to realize His work. He willed to retain the imperishable religious content of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.”
It is this “religious content” that you believe exists from the Mosaic Covenant even though abrogated.
Before I go further, let me make one short point. Part of my concern is the unnecessary ambiguity which pervades your articles. This is not an ambiguity on a theological nuance, it is an ambiguity which is, I am afraid, leading people to contentment outside of Christ. It truly is a form of liberalism and relativism, and one which has reared its attack throughout the Church age.
This is precisely why clear and concise statements based upon Church teaching must be used. The terms, and therefore concepts, related to abrogation, supersession, abolishment and even the death of the Mosaic Covenant are what we are charged to profess. Yet, I see your usage of undefined, ambiguous language which could easily lead a reader of the NCR, and this forum, to simply concede as truth. Your play on “chosen”, “special relationship”, being in the family “in a certain sense”, all attempt to placate a very well known and active heresy. Instead of meeting it with direct and concise truths, you chose to placate sensibilities. “Yes, you are still chosen and in a special relationship with God! But, never mind that it’s not salvific.” How lukewarm and impotent. Where is the “dead and buried” truth of Pius XII? And, sadly, this all appears unnecessary because you really, if read carefully, are only making a point that God chooses to deal with nations and people temporally based upon His Providence, and that the underlying call to mankind specifically the promises of Christ, continue for the Jews. Of course! God can deal with nations for their sins, and does. Yes Romans 11 can have various eschatological interpretations, but, you have no support to say more than that, at least authoritatively. So why insinuate that you speak from authority?
Let me use as example your response to a Stephen Dalton who posted a comment to your “On the Relationship” article. Mr. Dalton simply calls your analysis “wrong”. Your response begins “Your personal interpretation of selective Scripture passages doesn’t comport with what the Church has taught, what the current Pope has written and what Pius IX and the Fathers of the First Vatican Council believed about the status of the relationship between the Jewish people and God.”
From your response, I would assume there was actual binding Magisterial support, or a patristic consensus on Scriptural exegesis supporting your claims in your article. That simply isn’t true. Your positions on a continuing group of “chosen” other than the Church, your interpretations of Romans 9, 11, and Nostra Aetate’s citing of Scripture, simply are that – your, and other individual’s, personal positions and interpretations. Pope Benedict XVI speaking as a theologian carries as much weight as your speculation, which is why Pope’s have historically refrained from giving personal theological opinions, given the likelihood of misplaced authoritativeness.
In addition, your entire argument about “supersessionism” vs “supersede” is specious. Those who believe the Mosaic Covenant is superseded believe in supersessionism. The Mosaic Covenant is either superseded, annulled, revoked, abrogated, abolished, dead or it is not. There is no half-way or both/and, no matter how many times you cite Romans 9:4-5 – this is not akin to the mystery of Free will and Predestination.
CONTINUED:
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6631CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6228Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5195Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4313Poems and Reflections
Last by: BroIgnatius
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3293For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2828Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.