The next question always is: which “church”?
Well wouldn’t jews accuse catholics of the same thing concerning old testament prophesies about the messiah?
They not only accuse Catholics of such things, but also us non-Catholic Christians.
I take their objections just as seriously as I take the RC apologist’s similar objections. They are motivated by the same desire.
For instance when christians bring the prophesies in isaias forward as support for the passion of christ, jews will say that we are missiniterpreting it and that jews have always interpreted it to be a personification of the troubles that the jewish people have went though not nessesarilly a prophesy on how the messiah will die.
What should we make of this?
What I make of it is that veracity is not determined merely by the claim. The Orthodox, for example, make the very same claim about passages such as Matt 16.
When faced with the Jew who understands some of his history, the Catholic apologist is left basically without defense because they employ the very same arguments, for the exact same reasons, and for the exact same purposes. The pain is that the Jews came first, long before the Catholic Church was a thought. That ancient pedigree of doctrine and history are also used by the RC apologist in their polemics, so the retort for the Jew is the same as to the Catholic.
A good observation, for sure.
Now when a Jew would make the claim you mention above, he is plainly wrong, no matter how sincere he is or how much he believes it. This does not stop him from employing the argument solely for its philosophical impact, however. I find much of the same approach in RC apologetics, unfortunately.