The Jewish Annotated New Testament
#21
(10-02-2011, 01:49 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."

This. It's amazing how people have twisted the whole point of that book.  Jesus of Nazareth's main argument is that Christ is God and that this fact is central to Christianity but has been forgotten by too many Christians.

Wrong book.
Reply
#22
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 

Which book haven't I read? I think you're thinking of the wrong one.

God and the World is a series of interviews with Peter Seewald in which the then-Cardinal Ratzinger answered questions posed to him.

Not to be snarky, but if you had actually read the book instead of haughtily conjecturing about whether I had actually read it, you would have known that.
Reply
#23
(10-02-2011, 01:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 

Which book haven't I read? I think you're thinking of the wrong one.

Actually, I am lol!

Mea cupla. 

But he does repeat the argument in Jesus of Nazareth I. 
Reply
#24
(10-02-2011, 01:58 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 

Which book haven't I read? I think you're thinking of the wrong one.

Actually, I am lol!

Mea cupla. 

But he does repeat the argument in Jesus of Nazareth I. 

As I added above, God and the World is a series of interviews with Peter Seewald in which the then-Cardinal Ratzinger answered questions posed to him.

Not to be snarky, but if you had actually read the book instead of haughtily conjecturing about whether I had actually read the wrong one, you would have known that.

Regardless, the argument thus far is that the the point Cardinal Ratzinger made in his answer--(a) there are different valid ways to read the Old Testament, (b) so there are perfectly good reasons to deny that the Christian interpretation (that Christ is the Saviour of mankind), © and that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about--is not significant because his book called Jesus of Nazareth also includes the same argument, which says nice things about Christ being God.

I'm sorry but you're not going to convince any logician with such an argument.
Reply
#25
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Pope Benedict is not talking about all religious disagreements between Christians and Jews. He is only talking about the dispute over how to read the Old Testament. I think it helps to read the quotation in context:
Quote:Now let's take the prophet Isaiah. The original text in fact reads "Drop down righteousness, O heavens." Only after righteousness had come in the guise of a particular person did the Christians read this text with a personalized reference. Thus in this relationship of agreement between Old and New Testaments we can see how the word of Scripture offers a progressive way. The words go to meet him; they seek him out where he is still in obscurity.

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him--that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about. But this is not all. A great part of the purely historical and critical exegesis, likewise, does not read the Old Testament in this sense of pointing the way forward; it regards the Christian interpretation of it as being inconsistent with the original meaning, or at any rate as going far beyond it.

One would have to add this: The Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path. We still have the freedom to reject it. I would say that the very fact that this freedom is open to us is a guarantee that the texts will stand on their own. It is quite clear that historically the Old Testament precedes Christ; the faith and the Scriptures of the Jews make that as clear as day. The Church Fathers saw it as the historical mission of the Jews that, by saying Yes to the Old Testament and No to Jesus, they give a universal guarantee of the age and authenticity of their sacred books. This, so the Fathers thought, was why they remained Jews and did not become Christians. The texts stand on their own, but they gain new significance and unity of view when we read them with Christ.

Pope Benedict's main point is that the Old Testament can be read as being self-sufficient, but that it gains its new and proper meaning when read with reference to Christ.
Reply
#26
(10-02-2011, 02:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:58 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 

Which book haven't I read? I think you're thinking of the wrong one.

Actually, I am lol!

Mea cupla. 

But he does repeat the argument in Jesus of Nazareth I. 

As I added above, God and the World is a series of interviews with Peter Seewald in which the then-Cardinal Ratzinger answered questions posed to him.

Not to be snarky, but if you had actually read the book instead of haughtily conjecturing about whether I had actually read the wrong one, you would have known that.

Regardless, the argument thus far is that the the point Cardinal Ratzinger made in his answer--(a) there are different valid ways to read the Old Testament, (b) so there are perfectly good reasons to deny that the Christian interpretation (that Christ is the Saviour of mankind), © and that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about--is not significant because his book called Jesus of Nazareth also includes the same argument, which says nice things about Christ being God.

I'm sorry but you're not going to convince any logician with such an argument.

It's late, I am tired, and I mixed up the books.  But, the Pope does not believe the difference between the Jews and Christians is over anything other than the divinity of Christ.  
Reply
#27
(10-02-2011, 01:51 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 
:w2go:

If you had actually read the post, instead of putting so much faith in Someone's assumptions about whether I had read the book, which turned out to be the wrong one, you probably wouldn't be agreeing.

Nevertheless, the Cardinal made a point:

(1) "[ I ]f Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus."

(2) "[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about."

That is false.

The dispute between Christians and Jews is about the Jews' rejection of Christ, as the New Testament makes perfectly clear and as the Holy Catholic Faith professes. No Vatican prelate can rightfully trivialize it to make it something merely political, philosophical, semantical, or scholarly.

Christ gave grace to them all. If they rejected it, which they did, they have nothing else to blame but themselves. "Obscurity of the texts" isn't a valid excuse before the judgment seat of Almighty God.

That is not what the 2000-year-old dispute between Jews and Christians is all about.
Reply
#28
(10-02-2011, 02:13 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 02:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:58 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:50 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Yeah, the dispute is over whether Christ is God or not.  If you had actually read the book rather than copying out select paragraphs out of context you would know that. 

Which book haven't I read? I think you're thinking of the wrong one.

Actually, I am lol!

Mea cupla. 

But he does repeat the argument in Jesus of Nazareth I. 

As I added above, God and the World is a series of interviews with Peter Seewald in which the then-Cardinal Ratzinger answered questions posed to him.

Not to be snarky, but if you had actually read the book instead of haughtily conjecturing about whether I had actually read the wrong one, you would have known that.

Regardless, the argument thus far is that the the point Cardinal Ratzinger made in his answer--(a) there are different valid ways to read the Old Testament, (b) so there are perfectly good reasons to deny that the Christian interpretation (that Christ is the Saviour of mankind), © and that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about--is not significant because his book called Jesus of Nazareth also includes the same argument, which says nice things about Christ being God.

I'm sorry but you're not going to convince any logician with such an argument.

It's late, I am tired, and I mixed up the books.  But, the Pope does not believe the difference between the Jews and Christians is over anything other than the divinity of Christ.  

Of course.

But you misread me.

I am not saying that he doesn't say the dispute is about whether or not He is the Son of God.

I am saying that he says there are perfectly good reasons to deny that He is the Son of God.

The whole point of the Old Testament is to be fulfilled by the New Testament. Christ fulfilled all the prophecies. The Old Testament is how we know that Christ is Who He said He is and that He did what He said He came to do. 

Saying that there are perfectly good reasons to deny the Christian reading of the Old Testament means that there are perfectly good reasons for denying that Christ is the Son of God, which is the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.

But there are not perfectly good reasons for doing this. And this is not what the dispute is about.

The dispute is about the Jews, as a people (not individual Jews who are invincibly ignorant), refusing the Word of God. It is not about some alleged obscurity of the texts.

The Jews, as a people, aren't blinded by accident.
Reply
#29
Again, when read in the fuller context given above, Pope Benedict is merely making the point that the Old Testament can be read on its own. This is shown by the historical fact that the Jews read the Scriptures without reference to Christ before His birth. So, the Holy Father's point is that the Old Testament can be read to stand on its own, but that it only gains its true meaning, relevance, and unity when it is read with Christ.
Reply
#30
(10-02-2011, 02:12 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:34 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 01:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 03:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They just think we're wrong. No crime in that.

The Jews have no excuse before God.

Their continual rejection of Christ is a living testament to their perfidy and a punishment for their iniquity.

Accepting or rejecting our Lord is not a mere philosophical quandary of no practical importance. It is the most important decision a man has to make in his life.

No, you're wrong. The rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements. Hence, there are good reasons for rejecting Christ as the Saviour of mankind. Benedict XVI says so:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209. Wrote:“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

::)

The Holy Father is talking about debates over how we should read the Old Testament. Nothing in that quotation implies that Pope Benedict believes that "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements."
Quote:[T]hat is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.

Is that really all it's about?

Pope Benedict is not talking about all religious disagreements between Christians and Jews. He is only talking about the dispute over how to read the Old Testament. I think it helps to read the quotation in context:
Quote:Now let's take the prophet Isaiah. The original text in fact reads "Drop down righteousness, O heavens." Only after righteousness had come in the guise of a particular person did the Christians read this text with a personalized reference. Thus in this relationship of agreement between Old and New Testaments we can see how the word of Scripture offers a progressive way. The words go to meet him; they seek him out where he is still in obscurity.

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him--that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about. But this is not all. A great part of the purely historical and critical exegesis, likewise, does not read the Old Testament in this sense of pointing the way forward; it regards the Christian interpretation of it as being inconsistent with the original meaning, or at any rate as going far beyond it.

One would have to add this: The Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path. We still have the freedom to reject it. I would say that the very fact that this freedom is open to us is a guarantee that the texts will stand on their own. It is quite clear that historically the Old Testament precedes Christ; the faith and the Scriptures of the Jews make that as clear as day. The Church Fathers saw it as the historical mission of the Jews that, by saying Yes to the Old Testament and No to Jesus, they give a universal guarantee of the age and authenticity of their sacred books. This, so the Fathers thought, was why they remained Jews and did not become Christians. The texts stand on their own, but they gain new significance and unity of view when we read them with Christ.

Pope Benedict's main point is that the Old Testament can be read as being self-sufficient, but that it gains its new and proper meaning when read with reference to Christ.

Yes, I have read it in context.

His point is not changed by the context.

You are trying to divert my attention away from the point he made in the section by appealing to a more general point from the context.

He made the point that he made and he used to support a bigger point.

Nevertheless, the point he made is still there.

I might go on for five pages about Mary being the Mother of God. Then, in one line, I might say: "Mary was not necessarily a virgin in the strictest, physical sense (untrue). But the point is that God kept Her spiritually virginal so that She could be the Mother of God (true)."

Sure, the overall point is (somewhat) true, but the supporting point is false.

You seem to be trying to appeal to the general point to get me to ignore the point he used to support it.

Words still have concrete meaning to me. I have not reduced them to vague obscurities that can be molded this way or that and re-interpreted in a more favorable way so as to defend everything BXVI says and does.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)