SABBATH SABBATON SABBATHS

[IndigoChild5559]

Depends on the branch.

I didn't say all branches actually believed that i.e. Genesis is not historical. I simply said that Judaism does not depend upon it, as is seen be the existence of other branches.

 

[metis]

I didn't say all branches actually believed that i.e. Genesis is not historical. I simply said that Judaism does not depend upon it, as is seen be the existence of other branches.

Thanks for clarifying what you posted as I felt that there was a need to reflect the diversity within Judaism on this-- and a lot of other stuff as well.

 

[pearl]

Yes it does. Your Catholic Church accepts everything from the Virgin birth to the Resurrection. The myth of the Resurrection is in fact completely central to your theology of salvation.

According to the faith of the Church, the divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on Jesus having no human father, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage.
Hebrew Scripture contains a whole series of miraculous births, always at decisive turning points in the history of salvation; Isaac's mother Sarah, Samuel's mother, the mother of Sampson, and with all three the birth of the child who eventually contributes to Israel's salvation comes to pass as a manifestation of the gracious mercy of God. Bottom line man cannot save himself. From Isaiah, 'Sing, O barren one, who did not bear, break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in travail. for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord.'

One might the question why did He reveal himself to only a small number, the disciples on whose testimony of the Resurrection we need rely? Well why only to Abraham and not the world, why only Israel and not the entire world?

Are you presuming that only you as a Jew may understand what is myth in Hebrew Scripture, that we as Christians do not understand the myths of both Testaments, even our own?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

According to the faith of the Church, the divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on Jesus having no human father, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage.
Hebrew Scripture contains a whole series of miraculous births, always at decisive turning points in the history of salvation; Isaac's mother Sarah, Samuel's mother, the mother of Sampson, and with all three the birth of the child who eventually contributes to Israel's salvation comes to pass as a manifestation of the gracious mercy of God. Bottom line man cannot save himself. From Isaiah, 'Sing, O barren one, who did not bear, break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in travail. for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord.'

One might the question why did He reveal himself to only a small number, the disciples on whose testimony of the Resurrection we need rely? Well why only to Abraham and not the world, why only Israel and not the entire world?

Are you presuming that only you as a Jew may understand what is myth in Hebrew Scripture, that we as Christians do not understand the myths of both Testaments, even our own?

I respect your arguments. Unlike many in here, at least they are not completely off the wall. However, they still leave something to be desired.

None of the miraculous births in the Tanach are virgin birth, due to the overshadowing of the holy Spirit of God. While theologically speaking, yes, your god could have been incarnated via a normal earthly marriage, the way it was supposedly done makes it abundantly obvious. You have a much easier time with evangelization, for example, because of it. It simply makes sense to your doctrine theologically speaking.

As to Jews understanding the Tanakh, I do think we have the traditional meaning passed down to us orally, which Christians are out of touch with. I believe you see Jesus in the Tanakh the way that you can see castles in the clouds.

 

[pearl]

As to Jews understanding the Tanakh, I do think we have the traditional meaning passed down to us orally, which Christians are out of touch with. I believe you see Jesus in the Tanakh the way that you can see castles in the clouds.

I see in Jesus a faithful Jew.
It is the oral tradition that Jesus referred to, following the teaching of the Pharisees of who he claimed. they teach true doctrine,
they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching.

None of the miraculous births in the Tanach are virgin birth,

I made no such claim.

You have a much easier time with evangelization,

Catholics do not evangelize Jews, simply corrected false assumptions.


https://www.nytimes.com/1978/02/02/archives/new-jersey-pages-jewish-scholars-reassessing-historical-jesus.html



https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jesus

 

[metis]

Interpretations are a "bugger", and any claims of correct interpretation should always be treated with at least some suspect.

 

[pearl]

Interpretations are a "bugger", and any claims of correct interpretation should always be treated with at least some suspect.

You don't get off that easy. Interpretation of what, Scripture or what is the Church's teaching on Scripture?

 

[metis]

You don't get off that easy. Interpretation of what, Scripture or what is the Church's teaching on Scripture?

Hehehehe.

There can be a difference between what was meant by the author of a specific narrative versus what the Church's interpretation of said narrative may be. Unlike our fundamentalist Protestant brothers and sisters, we do not teach that every single item within the scriptures is inerrant. What we do teach is what we think is most likely correct.

BTW, the manifestation of which you undoubtedly have picked up on, when I talked with our priest who allowed me to resume the sacraments after abstaining from them for over 20 years, even though I attended mass regularly with my wife, involved my mentioning that since I am a scientist, now retired, thus it simply is my nature to question just about anything and everything, but what I can do is to commit myself to the Church and to help out as best I can. [how's that for a run-on sentence?] I know I've mentioned this to you before, but it is important for me to remind everyone who may read this that the Catholic Church is not the Gestapo whereas everyone must march lock-step on every item the Church may believe is most likely correct.

 

[metis]

BTW @pcarl, did you notice my thread "My New Avatar"? I wish we could talk in person as there's a lot more behind what happened that I think you would be interested in.

Let me put it to ya this way: I definitely have bought into the use of "intuitiveness" as influenced by the Holy Spirit, as the series of events that led me back to the Church were so utterly bizarre, but not imaginary nor based on coincidence, as what happened went on for over two years. And then it still didn't stop even after I had converted.

I know, coming from a scientist, this might sound quite weird-- but it happened. Sometimes I felt like Paul on the road to Damascus being dragged into the fold.

 

[pearl]

There can be a difference between what was meant by the author of a specific narrative versus what the Church's interpretation of said narrative may be. Unlike our fundamentalist Protestant brothers and sisters, we do not teach that every single item within the scriptures is inerrant. What we do teach is what we think is most likely correct.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I accept as a given that reference to Jesus in Hebrew Scripture is a Christian interpretation and does not reflect the intent of the Hebrew authors.

BTW, the manifestation of which you undoubtedly have picked up on

I have absolutely no clue as to what you are referring to. The dialogue exchange with IndigoChild5559 is unique in that he has no need or desire to know the Gospels, and that's fine. At the same time how does one who does no know them presume to know how we as Christians interpret them ? Without Hebrew Scripture there is no Christianity, no Church, this is our faith heritage without which we have no foundation.

As for interpretation within the Church there are a monumental number of Catholic scholars with various interpretations resulting from questioning. This is why the Church does not stagnate in the past but seeks to interpret anew for generations.

 

[metis]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I accept as a given that reference to Jesus in Hebrew Scripture is a Christian interpretation and does not reflect the intent of the Hebrew authors.

Completely agree.

I have absolutely no clue as to what you are referring to. The dialogue exchange with IndigoChild5559 is unique in that he has no need or desire to know the Gospels, and that's fine. At the same time how does one who does no know them presume to know how we as Christians interpret them ? Without Hebrew Scripture there is no Christianity, no Church, this is our faith heritage without which we have no foundation.

I really wasn't directly, or even indirectly, responding to his or your post, but what I did post was just my overview when it comes to the issue of interpretation.

As for interpretation within the Church there are a monumental number of Catholic scholars with various interpretations resulting from questioning. This is why the Church does not stagnate in the past but seeks to interpret anew for generations.

And I agree 100% with that.

Thus, no worries.

 

[pearl]

BTW @pcarl, did you notice my thread "My New Avatar"?

Yes, and loved it. My own experience was more subtle but it did bring me back to the Church after initial conversion and leaving.

I know, coming from a scientist, this might sound quite weird-- but it happened. Sometimes I felt like Paul on the road to Damascus being dragged into the fold.

But there is peace found in reconciling faith and knowledge, a knowing faith and believing knowledge.

 

[sooda]

The difference is, Judaism does not depend on the historicity of i.e. the creation myths in Genesis, or the historicity of Jonah. Christianity on the other hand absolutely depends on the historicity of the gospels.

Good post... worth repeating.

 

[metis]

Yes, and loved it. My own experience was more subtle but it did bring me back to the Church after initial conversion and leaving.

Glad you did because I do believe you're very much an asset to the Church.

But there is peace found in reconciling faith and knowledge, a knowing faith and believing knowledge.

Yes, but we also need to know our limitations when it comes to the issue of our knowledge, imo. Let me briefly elaborate on this.

For about 15 years, I was involved with Torah study at my synagogue, whereas we met on Shabbat just prior to services for about an hour and a half. There are times whereas we couldn't even make it through one chapter in one book because of issues with various interpretation.

As you may be aware of, Judaism relies heavily on a commentary system that goes well beyond even the reaches of the Talmud. Many scholars had different takes on a great many narratives, and very often they and we studying this had disagreements (always friendly with us though, but sometimes not always friendly with some of the sages) as to which made the most sense.

Therefore, so much of what we read and hear as Catholic teachings is based not so much on certainty as it is on a consensus of past Catholic scholars. It's a different approach than what's found in Judaism (there are exceptions), and there are pros & cons to both methodologies.

So, maybe this helps in understanding where I'm coming from and why?

 

[metis]

As to Jews understanding the Tanakh, I do think we have the traditional meaning passed down to us orally,

Yes, but the Oral Law was controversial within early Judaism. Even various aspects of the Oral Law within the Pharisee tradition were often quite contentious.

I believe you see Jesus in the Tanakh the way that you can see castles in the clouds.

I gotta agree with you here, and even many Catholic scholars would also agree with us on that. For example, parts of Isaiah are often used as "proof" about Jesus' coming, and yet at least some of the Catholic scholars recognize the fact that these versus simply cannot be applied to Jesus but refer to events that happened hundreds of years prior.

Sorry, as I gotta cut this short as I have to leave until later today.

Shabbat shalom.

 

[pearl]

Therefore, so much of what we read and hear as Catholic teachings is based not so much on certainty as it is on a consensus of past Catholic scholars.

In no way did I intend to be understood as confining knowledge to Catholic scholars alone or to the Church alone. There is much to be gained through Jewish scholars on the historical Jesus and our relation to, which continues today. Let me give an example; an excerpt from a quote by Schalom Ben-Clorin, "When at the passah meal I lift the cup and break the unleavened bread, I am doing what he did, and I know that I am much closer to him than many Christians who celebrate the Eucharist in complete separation from its Jewish origins."
I have in previous posts made clear that I do not equate faith and religion as one and the same, which I borrowed from Abraham Heschel in his book, 'God in Search of Man', as he writes of faith being the 'awe and wonderment' and religion being the expression of.
As for certainty as a Christian, there is only one, stripped of its mythical narrative, Jews at Pentecost experienced the crucified One lives among them and us today. Without that confession one is not a Christian.
As for reading Jesus back into Hebrew Scripture, where else would those who wrote Christian Scripture go to answer the question of who Jesus is/was other than the only Sacred Scripture in existence.

I don't know if I made my position clearer, or muddied it up.

 

[metis]

I borrowed from Abraham Heschel in his book, 'God in Search of Man',

Excellent book, imo.

As for certainty as a Christian, there is only one, stripped of its mythical narrative, Jews at Pentecost experienced the crucified One lives among them and us today. Without that confession one is not a Christian.

I totally agree, so it's really more the details that I do question, which is not to say they're wrong however.

It's entirely possible that I may "humanize" Jesus more than you, especially since it's his basic messages as especially spelled out in the Sermon On the Mount that I find so profound and life changing. And he said "I came to serve, not to be served", so it's his teachings especially that I especially focus in on.

As for reading Jesus back into Hebrew Scripture, where else would those who wrote Christian Scripture go to answer the question of who Jesus is/was other than the only Sacred Scripture in existence.

In a summary of the Book of Isaiah, Jerome's Bible Commentary says it is this way [paraphrased]: even though the Isaiah events are not directly about Jesus, they "prefigure" Jesus. IOW, they set up the paradigm hundreds of years later that will be repeated.

In Judaism, there's the knowledge that so much of what we read is a lot like "circular reasoning", but in a positive way. We see reoccurring patterns with the important figures, whereas Jesus can be cited as a new "Adam" and a new "Moses", for example. This occurs a lot within both testaments, and it also allows us to see Jesus in "Torah" because of this approach.

I don't know if I made my position clearer, or muddied it up.

Not at all as far as I can tell, but maybe I "muddied it up" with my comments, especially since I have to be brief since I'm outta here shortly.

 

[pearl]

It's entirely possible that I may "humanize" Jesus more than you, especially since it's his basic messages as especially spelled out in the Sermon On the Mount that I find so profound and life changing. And he said "I came to serve, not to be served", so it's his teachings especially that I especially focus in on.

I think in the past, unfortunately, the popular image of Jesus was taken from John's Gospel which does not present the humanity of Jesus as does Mark.

In Judaism, there's the knowledge that so much of what we read is a lot like "circular reasoning", but in a positive way. We see reoccurring patterns with the important figures, whereas Jesus can be cited as a new "Adam" and a new "Moses", for example. This occurs a lot within both testaments, and it also allows us to see Jesus in "Torah" because of this approach.

Jesus affirms that his words “are spirit and life” (Jn 6:63), giving primary importance to the Tôr~h.
The 'Sermon on the Mount' is a perfect example of methods of rabbinic scriptural argumentation.

If I seem to read as too much clarification on Church teaching its because of my experience as a master catechist in our diocese for thirty years.

 

[metis]

If I seem to read as too much clarification on Church teaching its because of my experience as a master catechist in our diocese for thirty years.

Very good! And I probably can be referred to as the "Church Skeptic" with my questioning of pretty much everything, including my own sanity at times. Therefore, between the two of us, I think we balance it all out quite well.

BTW, you're gonna get a break as we're taking a mini-vacation for four days near Mackinac starting Monday, and then the following week we'll be gone for three days as we'll up in da U.P. Enjoy da peace while you can.

Take care, my friend.

 

[metis]

The 'Sermon on the Mount' is a perfect example of methods of rabbinic scriptural argumentation.

I've made the comment that I believe one can just read the Sermon On the Mount in Mathew's gospel and just follow that, as I believe it basically covers all the essentials. All the rest are pretty much side-bars, imo, but obviously well worth the read.