The Jewish Annotated New Testament
#31
(10-02-2011, 02:35 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

He is not talking about pre-Christ interpretations in this point. He is talking about them rejecting His fulfillment of the Old Testament post-Christ.

Quote:And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him . . .

He is talking about the Old Testament being read with Christ in mind and Him still being rejected.
Reply
#32
Well, you have to remember that Pope Benedict's main point is really about how Christians read the Old Testament. This wider context is important to understanding the smaller points he makes. Of course, reading statements made by the Holy Father in their full context also tends to show that what he is saying is orthodox, so I can understand why you would reject this method, but still.

Anyway, Pope Benedict's point is that the Old Testament can be read so as to stand on its own. The Jews prove this point by the fact that they have always read the Old Testament without reference to Christ. However, Christians can look back on the Old Testament and see that Christ does in fact fulfill all of the promises of the Old Testament, and so it must be read with Christ. This is why the Holy Father says that Christ gives the Old Testament its proper meaning, relevance, unity, and so forth. So, the Old Testament can stand on its own, and this is how the Jews read it, but it really only receives its true meaning through Christ.

He is also pointing out the somewhat obscure relationship between the Old Testament and Christ. "The words go to meet him," or, later, "[t]he Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path." The Old Testament leads or reaches out to Christ. It is not an oracle in the sense of giving completely clear predictions of His ministry and passion. You would not be able to predict the events of Christ's life with the Old Testament without first knowing about Him. The Jews have rejected the path of the Old Testament and have not followed it to Christ. Instead, they continue to read it as pointing to nothing beyond itself. So, they show that the Old Testament can stand on its own, but at the same time we Christians know that it does not truly stand on it its own and that it actually leads us to Christ. This is the Holy Father's meaning.
Reply
#33
(10-02-2011, 03:22 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, you have to remember that Pope Benedict's main point is really about how Christians read the Old Testament. This wider context is important to understanding the smaller points he makes. Of course, reading statements made by the Holy Father in their full context also tends to show that what he is saying is orthodox, so I can understand why you would reject this method, but still.

Anyway, Pope Benedict's point is that the Old Testament can be read so as to stand on its own. The Jews prove this point by the fact that they have always read the Old Testament without reference to Christ. However, Christians can look back on the Old Testament and see that Christ does in fact fulfill all of the promises of the Old Testament, and so it must be read with Christ. This is why the Holy Father says that Christ gives the Old Testament its proper meaning, relevance, unity, and so forth. So, the Old Testament can stand on its own, and this is how the Jews read it, but it really only receives its true meaning through Christ.

He is also pointing out the somewhat obscure relationship between the Old Testament and Christ. "The words go to meet him," or, later, "[t]he Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path." The Old Testament leads or reaches out to Christ. It is not an oracle in the sense of giving completely clear predictions of His ministry and passion. You would not be able to predict the events of Christ's life with the Old Testament without first knowing about Him. The Jews have rejected the path of the Old Testament and have not followed it to Christ. Instead, they continue to read it as pointing to nothing beyond itself. So, they show that the Old Testament can stand on its own, but at the same time we Christians know that it does not truly stand on it its own and that it actually leads us to Christ. This is the Holy Father's meaning.

I can only hope that he didn't mean what he actually said.
Reply
#34
(10-02-2011, 03:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 03:22 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, you have to remember that Pope Benedict's main point is really about how Christians read the Old Testament. This wider context is important to understanding the smaller points he makes. Of course, reading statements made by the Holy Father in their full context also tends to show that what he is saying is orthodox, so I can understand why you would reject this method, but still.

Anyway, Pope Benedict's point is that the Old Testament can be read so as to stand on its own. The Jews prove this point by the fact that they have always read the Old Testament without reference to Christ. However, Christians can look back on the Old Testament and see that Christ does in fact fulfill all of the promises of the Old Testament, and so it must be read with Christ. This is why the Holy Father says that Christ gives the Old Testament its proper meaning, relevance, unity, and so forth. So, the Old Testament can stand on its own, and this is how the Jews read it, but it really only receives its true meaning through Christ.

He is also pointing out the somewhat obscure relationship between the Old Testament and Christ. "The words go to meet him," or, later, "[t]he Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path." The Old Testament leads or reaches out to Christ. It is not an oracle in the sense of giving completely clear predictions of His ministry and passion. You would not be able to predict the events of Christ's life with the Old Testament without first knowing about Him. The Jews have rejected the path of the Old Testament and have not followed it to Christ. Instead, they continue to read it as pointing to nothing beyond itself. So, they show that the Old Testament can stand on its own, but at the same time we Christians know that it does not truly stand on it its own and that it actually leads us to Christ. This is the Holy Father's meaning.

I can only hope that he didn't mean what he actually said.

And I can only hope that you will begin to actually read what the Holy Father has said.
Reply
#35
(10-02-2011, 03:49 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 03:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 03:22 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, you have to remember that Pope Benedict's main point is really about how Christians read the Old Testament. This wider context is important to understanding the smaller points he makes. Of course, reading statements made by the Holy Father in their full context also tends to show that what he is saying is orthodox, so I can understand why you would reject this method, but still.

Anyway, Pope Benedict's point is that the Old Testament can be read so as to stand on its own. The Jews prove this point by the fact that they have always read the Old Testament without reference to Christ. However, Christians can look back on the Old Testament and see that Christ does in fact fulfill all of the promises of the Old Testament, and so it must be read with Christ. This is why the Holy Father says that Christ gives the Old Testament its proper meaning, relevance, unity, and so forth. So, the Old Testament can stand on its own, and this is how the Jews read it, but it really only receives its true meaning through Christ.

He is also pointing out the somewhat obscure relationship between the Old Testament and Christ. "The words go to meet him," or, later, "[t]he Old Testament is not an oracle; it is a path." The Old Testament leads or reaches out to Christ. It is not an oracle in the sense of giving completely clear predictions of His ministry and passion. You would not be able to predict the events of Christ's life with the Old Testament without first knowing about Him. The Jews have rejected the path of the Old Testament and have not followed it to Christ. Instead, they continue to read it as pointing to nothing beyond itself. So, they show that the Old Testament can stand on its own, but at the same time we Christians know that it does not truly stand on it its own and that it actually leads us to Christ. This is the Holy Father's meaning.

I can only hope that he didn't mean what he actually said.

And I can only hope that you will begin to actually read what the Holy Father has said.

What he says troubles me.

Your last post said nothing more than what you have already been saying.

And what you have been saying has already been addressed.

And what was addressed was the fact that it is you who are not reading his clear meaning; instead, you ignoring it in favor of what you want him to mean by putting words on the paper in place of what he said.

This idea that error ceases to be error if error is used to make a bigger point in a larger context is not critical thinking. Every error in the history of error could do the same thing.
Reply
#36
(10-02-2011, 03:55 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: What he says troubles me.

Your last post said nothing more than what you have already been saying.

And what you have been saying has already been addressed.

And what was addressed was the fact that it is you who are not reading his clear meaning; instead, you ignoring it in favor of what you want him to mean by putting words on the paper in place of what he said.

This idea that error ceases to be error if error is used to make a bigger point in a larger context is not critical thinking. Every error in the history of error could do the same thing.

I repeated much of what I have already said in my last post because you continue to ignore the point. Pope Benedict is merely pointing out the differences between critical, Jewish, and Christian readings of the Old Testament. He is not saying anything like "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements," as you would have it. The Holy Father makes a simple statement about different ways of reading Scripture and you somehow take that to mean that he thinks it isn't a big deal if one does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Jewish reading of the Old Testament is just as valid as the Christian one. The trouble is, that can nowhere be found in what Pope Benedict wrote. You've taken a statement out of context and applied it to a problem that it was never originally intended to address.
Reply
#37
(10-02-2011, 04:04 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 03:55 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: What he says troubles me.

Your last post said nothing more than what you have already been saying.

And what you have been saying has already been addressed.

And what was addressed was the fact that it is you who are not reading his clear meaning; instead, you ignoring it in favor of what you want him to mean by putting words on the paper in place of what he said.

This idea that error ceases to be error if error is used to make a bigger point in a larger context is not critical thinking. Every error in the history of error could do the same thing.

I repeated much of what I have already said in my last post because you continue to ignore the point. Pope Benedict is merely pointing out the differences between critical, Jewish, and Christian readings of the Old Testament. He is not saying anything like "[t]he rejection of Christ is founded in mere scholarly and philosophical disagreements," as you would have it. The Holy Father makes a simple statement about different ways of reading Scripture and you somehow take that to mean that he thinks it isn't a big deal if one does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Jewish reading of the Old Testament is just as valid as the Christian one. The trouble is, that can nowhere be found in what Pope Benedict wrote. You've taken a statement out of context and applied it to a problem that it was never originally intended to address.

So you don't have a problem, then, with me saying that the obscurity of the magisterium is a perfectly good reason to reject it?

You can't address the actual words of BXVI because of the error they contain. The only way around the error is to deny that he made the statement he made by trying to say, "He's just talking about Christ bringing light to the meaning of the text." Sure, but he is saying more than that. He is saying that despite this fact, that there are perfectly good reasons for the Jews to read it and deny that it refers to Christ.

God, Himself, authored the Old Testament to point to Christ. To refer to the meaning of the Word of God as obscure, and that somehow God wasn't able to express His meaning as it referred to His Son is blasphemous, but this is the implication of BXVI's own words.

You can say, "Oh, but he didn't actually say that!" Sure, and the semi-Arians didn't actually deny that Christ was God, but it was the implication of what they taught. Subtle error is the most dangerous of errors.

It was only possible for the Old Testament to be read as not referring to Christ before Christ. To deny that is to deny Christ's own words, which is the word of God Himself.

But he clearly says that, post-Christ, it still doesn't point unequivocally to Him:
Quote:“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.

We know he's talking about post-Christ because he then says:
Quote: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.

Tension between God's Word in the Old Testament and God's Word in the New Testament? That is blasphemous.

God's Word obscure? Only without the light of grace. But then again, that's the problem: the Jews rejecting Christ because they rejected His grace. That is the true reason they deny Him.

Of course, we all acknowledge this; it doesn't detract from his point:
Quote:Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

The problem is that he then goes on to excuse the Jews' non-belief:
Quote: 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.”

No, that statement is false and no context can change a false statement. There are not perfectly good reasons to deny that the Old Testament refers to Christ now that He has revealed His Son. That's the whole point of the Son being made Man.

On the one hand, BXVI says that Christ gives new meaning to the Scriptures. This is the context of the answer and is perfectly acceptable.

On the other, however, BXVI says that there are good reasons to reject this meaning. This, he says, is the source of the conflict. And this idea, though in context of Christ's bringing light to the OT, is not negated by this context, which is about the Christian interpretation. In a context about the Christian interpretation, this portion is about the non-Christian interpretation. The context doesn't change that.

Is Judas, too, excused in betraying Christ because of the "obscurity of the Word of God made Man?" Maybe he just didn't understand what Christ meant. Maybe he was just confused. Maybe God's word is just too confusing and can be read in different ways.

To suppose such a thing is blasphemous. God speaks and, when He does, he infuses grace into the soul that His truth may be understood. To say that there are good reasons to reject God's truth because He doesn't always say what He means is an affront to God.

God authored the Old Testament to point unequivocally to Christ. To say He didn't attacks the intellect of God. God can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Reply
#38
(10-02-2011, 05:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: God authored the Old Testament to point unequivocally to Christ. To say He didn't attacks the intellect of God. God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

:amen:

The extent to which people will go to defend their Judaic Pope is even more troubling than the Pope himself. It seems that the spiritual disease that infects the church is spreading rather than receding.

In any case, what Benedict is saying is indefensible. Christ Himself reproaches the Pharisees for their blindness and says that the scriptures speak of Him. He adds that Moses will be the one accusing the Jews for not believing the scriptures. Perhaps Benedict missed that. Christ doesn't say to them that the texts are obscure and that there are perfectly good reasons for them to reject Him, rather He sternly reprooves their unbelief.

John 5:36-47 Wrote:"But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life.

I receive glory not from men. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek? Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
Reply
#39
(10-02-2011, 07:11 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 05:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: God authored the Old Testament to point unequivocally to Christ. To say He didn't attacks the intellect of God. God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

:amen:

The extent to which people will go to defend their Judaic Pope is even more troubling than the Pope himself. It seems that the spiritual disease that infects the church is spreading rather than receding.

In any case, what Benedict is saying is indefensible. Christ Himself reproaches the Pharisees for their blindness and says that the scriptures speak of Him. He adds that Moses will be the one accusing the Jews for not believing the scriptures. Perhaps Benedict missed that. Christ doesn't say to them that the texts are obscure and that there are perfectly good reasons for them to reject Him, rather He sternly reprooves their unbelief.

John 5:36-47 Wrote:"But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life.

I receive glory not from men. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek? Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Yes, it is our Holy Saviour Who, speaking to the Jews, told them why they did not believe:
John 8 Wrote:[16] And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. [17] And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true. [18] I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me. [19] They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.
John 8 Wrote:[42] Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: [43] Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. [45] But if I say the truth, you believe me not. [46] Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? [47] He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.
John 8 Wrote:[56] Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [59] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
John 14 Wrote:[6] Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. [7] If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. [8] Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. [9] Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father? [10] Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

[11] Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? [12] Otherwise believe for the very works' sake.

The Jews (who the mouth of God called liars and said were "of satan" ) reject Christ because of their own refusal to hear the Word of God; they do not "know Him", as God Himself said.

There are never "perfectly good reasons" to hear the word of God and reject it.

The context of BXVI's words acknowledges the light Christ brings to the Scriptures. But BXVI then admits, while at the same time making reference to that very context, that there are perfectly good reasons for not seeing (not acknowledging, not understanding, etc.) this light. The latter is not negated by the former. It is a sub-point to the point he was making about Christ first bringing light to the Scriptures. He merely qualifies that point by acknowledging that the Jews are excepted because of the obscurity of the texts and because of the tension between the texts and the figure of Jesus.

In context, his statement makes an exception much like this: "It is Christ who first gives the Scriptures their full light and meaning, but if the Jews don't see this, it is not ill-will on their part because the texts are obscure and there is tension between the texts and the figure of Jesus."

The context--that Christ first brings light to the texts--does not negate the acknowledgment that the Jews are excepted from being culpable for refusing to see this light.

It is like saying, in context: "All must believe the word of God when they hear it." And then adding: "But those who have not even heard it can be considered invincibly ignorant."

The meaning of the latter statement isn't changed by the context. In fact, the latter statement is predicated on the context itself.

Arguing that the second statement doesn't mean what it says because it is being "taken out of context" is a false appeal to context. The very meaning of the second statement is derived from the context.

Likewise, the very meaning of BXVI's exoneration of the Jews' is derived from the context, as he notes in that very section being discussed. He says right there that Christ gives full meaning and light to the Scriptures but then goes on to acknowledge that it is possible not to recognize this light.

But according to God Himself, that is absolutely false. If someone doesn't "understand", it is his own fault and he will be punished:
Matthew 13 Wrote:[3] And he spoke to them many things in parables, saying: Behold the sower went forth to sow. [4] And whilst he soweth some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and ate them up. [5] And other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth.

[6] And when the sun was up they were scorched: and because they had not root, they withered away. [7] And others fell among thorns: and the thorns grew up and choked them. [8] And others fell upon good ground: and they brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, and some thirtyfold. [9] He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. [10] And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?

[11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. [12] For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. [13] Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [14] And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. [15] For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.


[16] But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. [17] For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them. [18] Hear you therefore the parable of the sower. [19] When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side. [20] And he that received the seed upon stony ground, is he that heareth the word, and immediately receiveth it with joy.

[21] Yet hath he not root in himself, but is only for a time: and when there ariseth tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently scandalized. [22] And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless. [23] But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundredfold, and another sixty, and another thirty.

The Jews' lack of understanding itself was a fulfillment of the prophecies. And their lack of understanding was a consequence of their own stony hearts, not because God was incapable of making the prophecies of His Son clear enough for the human heart to recognize unequivocally.
Reply
#40
(10-01-2011, 11:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 10:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-01-2011, 10:05 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: I reserve the right to respect the religious beliefs of non-Catholics. People like you almost (but not quite) make me ashamed of being Catholic. Grow a pair yourself.      :bronxcheer:

You have the Christian duty to respect and love not only those in the church but also those outside her.

However, there's no need to respect the false creeds that put these people's own souls in peril. In fact, one must labour to preach against them.

This! But Grasshopper seems to be a thoroughgoing libtard who believes all religions lead to heaven. Otherwise, he would understand!

I wouldn't quite put it that way. But I do not believe a just God would condemn a good person to eternal torture simply for believing what he or she has been taught to believe since birth. If you know for a fact that Jesus Christ was God and that Catholicism is the true religion, and you reject it anyway, OK -- you're probably going to Hell. But almost nobody fits that description. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt; most of you apparently are not. Fortunately, it's not up to any of us. God in His infinite wisdom will make the correct decision.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)