Are The Jews Responsible For Christ's Death?
#11
The Jews were "cursed" not because they crucified Christ, but because they knew (or should have known) better.  That is why we pray that their perfidiousness be lifted.  When they convert and turn to Christ, the curse is lifted.  Christ died because of all our sins.  That's orthogonal to the "curse" upon the Jews.

I put "curse" in quotes because it is misused by anti-Semites way too often.

The curse is symbolized by an anathema (which, btw is what anathema means - curse) or excommunication.  They, once part of the vine, have been cut off.  They are withered like the cursed fig.

As much as it's wrong to mistake the "curse" for something that goes to ethnic Judaism or to read into it something that's not there, it's a mistake to group in the sin of the Jews in particular with the sin of the pagans, etc.  They were the Chosen People and they rejected their own Savior.  That is something unique that should not be glossed over.
Reply
#12
I have always wondered was the destruction of Jerusalem punishment for their rejection of the Messiah? I have always thought it was prophesied in Isaiah and That Christ mentioned it when he said "no stone would be left upon another". And there were other things he said too in Luke but I cant remember them off the top of my dense head.
Reply
#13
(03-01-2011, 07:00 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I have always wondered was the destruction of Jerusalem punishment for their rejection of the Messiah? I have always thought it was prophesied in Isaiah and That Christ mentioned it when he said "no stone would be left upon another". And there were other things he said too in Luke but I cant remember them off the top of my dense head.

Without referring to the Fathers, my personal opinion is, yes, in a sense.

If they had converted, it wouldn't be punishment.  It was only a punishment to them as Jews.  If they became followers of Christ, seeing the Temple fall wouldn't have bothered them.  They probably would have thrown a party.

The fact that the Wailing Wall still exists and the fall of the Temple is lamented shows they are still being "punished" in a sense.  For those who convert it becomes an important archaeological remain of the Covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

In other words, the Temple would have fallen no matter what.  It is only a "punishment" because they make it to be by their perfidy.
Reply
#14
(03-01-2011, 07:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 07:00 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I have always wondered was the destruction of Jerusalem punishment for their rejection of the Messiah? I have always thought it was prophesied in Isaiah and That Christ mentioned it when he said "no stone would be left upon another". And there were other things he said too in Luke but I cant remember them off the top of my dense head.

Without referring to the Fathers, my personal opinion is, yes, in a sense.

If they had converted, it wouldn't be punishment.  It was only a punishment to them as Jews.  If they became followers of Christ, seeing the Temple fall wouldn't have bothered them.  They probably would have thrown a party.

The fact that the Wailing Wall still exists and the fall of the Temple is lamented shows they are still being "punished" in a sense.  For those who convert it becomes an important archaeological remain of the Covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

In other words, the Temple would have fallen no matter what.  It is only a "punishment" because they make it to be by their perfidy.

Gotcha, thanks I have always wonderd this.
Reply
#15
(03-01-2011, 07:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 07:00 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I have always wondered was the destruction of Jerusalem punishment for their rejection of the Messiah? I have always thought it was prophesied in Isaiah and That Christ mentioned it when he said "no stone would be left upon another". And there were other things he said too in Luke but I cant remember them off the top of my dense head.

Without referring to the Fathers, my personal opinion is, yes, in a sense.

If they had converted, it wouldn't be punishment.  It was only a punishment to them as Jews.  If they became followers of Christ, seeing the Temple fall wouldn't have bothered them.  They probably would have thrown a party.

The fact that the Wailing Wall still exists and the fall of the Temple is lamented shows they are still being "punished" in a sense.  For those who convert it becomes an important archaeological remain of the Covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

In other words, the Temple would have fallen no matter what.  It is only a "punishment" because they make it to be by their perfidy.
I wonder if it was just coincidence that the destruction of the ultimate symbol of the Old Covenant (Temple) was perpetuated by the very same people (Romans) who came from the very same place (Rome) that would ultimately be the seat of the center of the New Covenant (Vatican) and the vessel from which the NC would be evangelized and spread (Roman Empire).
Reply
#16
(02-28-2011, 08:11 PM)Baskerville Wrote: Even before Vpoo the official stance was that not all the Jews were liable. But it didn't always play out that way in reality.
Jesus himself declares that it's not all Jews, but impostors who claim they are.........

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.  Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer . . . be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. . . . Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9.
Reply
#17
(03-01-2011, 07:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Without referring to the Fathers, my personal opinion is, yes, in a sense.

If they had converted, it wouldn't be punishment.  It was only a punishment to them as Jews.  If they became followers of Christ, seeing the Temple fall wouldn't have bothered them.  They probably would have thrown a party.

The fact that the Wailing Wall still exists and the fall of the Temple is lamented shows they are still being "punished" in a sense.  For those who convert it becomes an important archaeological remain of the Covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

In other words, the Temple would have fallen no matter what.  It is only a "punishment" because they make it to be by their perfidy.

Dumb Question time: So why did Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both go to the Wailing Wall, considering it was God's will that the Temple be destroyed?  I know it wasn't to lament with the Jews in that regard, but couldn't be it perceived in that fashion?  You don't really have to answer, I mean it more as a rhetorical question.  Just one more baffling action to add to the list...

James02,
Thanks for the passage.
Reply
#18
(03-03-2011, 01:54 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: So why did Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both go to the Wailing Wall, considering it was God's will that the Temple be destroyed? 

Do we really need to answer that? You should know it by now.

Just listen to Benedict XVI whenever the Jews are the topic of discussion. The pandering is obscene and revolting.

Certainly, these churchmen don't walk "uprightly unto the truth of the gospel." (Gal.2:14)
Reply
#19
(03-03-2011, 02:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Do we really need to answer that? You should know it by now.

Just listen to Benedict XVI whenever the Jews are the topic of discussion. The pandering is obscene and revolting.

Certainly, these churchmen don't walk "uprightly unto the truth of the gospel." (Gal.2:14)

Yeah, I know, I know...  :sigh:  Sometimes, you just don't want to believe what's right in front of your face.

God help us.  :pray:
Reply
#20
What Vetus said.  It's the same reason they apologize for the Crusades and the Inquisition.

They don't even apologize for abuses in the Crusades and Inquisition, which might remotely be legitimate (though not really because the Church condemned those things, She didn't order them).  But they apologize for the events in and of themselves.  It's ridiculous.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)