The Jewish Annotated New Testament
#41
(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?"
:amen: :amen:
Thank you Vetus and INPEFESS.
There is no way the Old Testament cannot be read as pointing to Christ.  Saying it can mocks its Author.  It is commendable to defend he Pope, but not when he is in error.  How can it be that a Catholic could claim the scriptures can be read as not pointing to Christ? I would only say such a thing in the context of lamenting such a reader's mortal blindness.  It is for good reason we pray for the Jews that their blindness may be removed.  This is true charity.
Reply
#42
(10-02-2011, 04:37 PM)Landelinus Wrote: It is for good reason we pray for the Jews that their blindness may be removed.

Not anymore and certainly "not in a missionary sense."

Those are the directives of Rabbi Ratzinger. Obey.
Reply
#43
(10-02-2011, 09:22 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(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.

INPEFESS. I've addressed your malicious nonsense several times, but, like the Jews, you refuse to open your eyes, so I'm not sure that there is much point in continuing this. I will just say that the Holy Father does not "exonerate" the Jews as you would have it. In fact, he plainly states that the Jews have rejected the Old Testament by not following it to Christ. The Pope is merely trying to frame the dispute between Jews and Christians. He does this by first pointing out that the Old Testament can be read on its own, but that it only receives its true meaning through Christ. The Jews accept the Old Testament but they do not follow it to Christ. As a result, they do not understand its true meaning. There is nothing problematic in this, but I'm sure you will continue to misrepresent the Holy Father.
Reply
#44
(10-02-2011, 05:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Rabbi Ratzinger

Vetus, my friend, you're treading a very fine line here! :)
Reply
#45
(10-02-2011, 05:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 05:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Rabbi Ratzinger

Vetus, my friend, you're treading a very fine line here! :)

What's it matter. It's been long established that Vetus can say anything about the Pope and get no more than a warning.
Reply
#46
(10-02-2011, 06:42 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 05:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2011, 05:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Rabbi Ratzinger

Vetus, my friend, you're treading a very fine line here! :)

What's it matter. It's been long established that Vetus can say anything about the Pope and get no more than a warning.

As the pope can say anything about our faith and get excused by his militant squires.
Reply
#47
(10-02-2011, 05:09 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: INPEFESS. I've addressed your malicious nonsense several times,

I am not sure why you have deemed my disagreement with you malicious. It is a simple disagreement. I am only pointing out an apparent contradiction between the words of Our Holy Saviour, the teachings of our Holy Catholic Church, and those of BXVI. There is no reason to caste doubt on my good will.

For the record, I acknowledge that there are many statements from BXVI that are taken out of context in such a way as to accuse him of heresy. Sometimes, people who do not seem to be of good will will jump at anything to accuse BXVI of heresy. This is lamentable and is very dangerous for anyone who would do such a thing. I am sure there is a special place in hell for those who would maliciously twist the words of any man in such a way as to accuse him of heresy. Nevertheless, this is one of those cases where I don't think he can be justified. The context doesn't change the point he made.

I do not believe that you are being malicious. I believe only that it is difficult for you to believe that the pope can say or do anything wrong, especially in this case where what he is so problematic. This is why you appeal to the context to avoid discussion of the actual side-point he made in passing.

Quote: but, like the Jews, you refuse to open your eyes, so I'm not sure that there is much point in continuing this. I will just say that the Holy Father does not "exonerate" the Jews as you would have it. In fact, he plainly states that the Jews have rejected the Old Testament by not following it to Christ. The Pope is merely trying to frame the dispute between Jews and Christians. He does this by first pointing out that the Old Testament can be read on its own, but that it only receives its true meaning through Christ. The Jews accept the Old Testament but they do not follow it to Christ. As a result, they do not understand its true meaning. There is nothing problematic in this, but I'm sure you will continue to misrepresent the Holy Father.

It must be that he misrepresents himself, then. It is he, and not I, who adds an important part that you conveniently leave out every time you re-present his point. He says what you say here, and in this point you are correct. You say:
Quote:He does this by first pointing out that the Old Testament can be read on its own, but that it only receives its true meaning through Christ. The Jews accept the Old Testament but they do not follow it to Christ. As a result, they do not understand its true meaning.

Yes, he says that. But then he goes on to say that there are perfectly good reasons for them to 'not follow it to Christ' because of such reasons as "the obscurity of the text" and the "tension between the texts and figure of Jesus."

He continues by saying that, in light of these reason, there are 'pefectly good reasons for denying that it refers to Christ.'

That is not my extrapolation; those are his actual words.

You accuse me of being blind and malicious, yet it is you who will not address these troubling words from BXVI. He said what you say he said and more. However, you will not address the fact that he said these words; instead, you pretend he didn't say them and then say, "Oh, but he's only saying that the Jews don't follow it to Christ." Yes, he is saying that, and he is saying much more. He is excusing them for not doing so. This is a slap in the face of God Himself Who authored the Old Testament for one purpose and for one purpose only: to point to Christ. To claim that His authorship was in some way deficient or lacking is borderline blasphemy of Our Holy God.

To acknowledge such a simple fact, consider the whole text (and not just selective parts where he says nice things), and face reality is not malicious or blind. I am appalled that he said what he said, and I believe that any God-fearing person has every right to be appalled by such a statement, especially coming from the man who is now viewed by the entire Catholic and non-Catholic world alike as the representative of Christ Himself.

If you choose to see my acknowledgment as malicious or blind, then I will not try to dissuade you. Nevertheless, I ask you only to reconsider the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you is malicious or blind.

I have absolutely zero interest in whether his statement is orthodox or not. It would be better if it could be justified, but even "reading it in context" and giving it your favorable interpretation doesn't change the reality of the side-point he makes as part of a larger, more comfortable context. I have better things to do with my time then extrapolate quotes from BXVI to make him look bad and then spend hours defending that extrapolation on the internet.

Nevertheless, I refuse to defend the indefensible; and this statement, my friend, is absolutely indefensible.

May God love you and keep you forever close to His Most Sacred Heart.
Reply
#48
I apologize for the heated statements I made in my last post in this thread. I shouldn't have gotten caught up statements you were making that were not relevant to the argument.

(10-02-2011, 10:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: It must be that he misrepresents himself, then. It is he, and not I, who adds an important part that you conveniently leave out every time you re-present his point. He says what you say here, and in this point you are correct. You say:
Quote:He does this by first pointing out that the Old Testament can be read on its own, but that it only receives its true meaning through Christ. The Jews accept the Old Testament but they do not follow it to Christ. As a result, they do not understand its true meaning.

Yes, he says that. But then he goes on to say that there are perfectly good reasons for them to 'not follow it to Christ' because of such reasons as "the obscurity of the text" and the "tension between the texts and figure of Jesus."

He continues by saying that, in light of these reason, there are 'pefectly good reasons for denying that it refers to Christ.'

That is not my extrapolation; those are his actual words.

You accuse me of being blind and malicious, yet it is you who will not address these troubling words from BXVI. He said what you say he said and more. However, you will not address the fact that he said these words; instead, you pretend he didn't say them and then say, "Oh, but he's only saying that the Jews don't follow it to Christ." Yes, he is saying that, and he is saying much more. He is excusing them for not doing so. This is a slap in the face of God Himself Who authored the Old Testament for one purpose and for one purpose only: to point to Christ. To claim that His authorship was in some way deficient or lacking is borderline blasphemy of Our Holy God.

I have addressed these "troubling" words from the Pope several times. However, as I keep pointing out, the the specific statements you find problematic need to be read in context. The Holy Father is addressing several subjects in the quotation. One of these is how exactly the Old Testament points to Christ. According to Pope Benedict, the Old Testament is not an oracle that clearly and obviously tells us about Christ. Instead, there is a two-way relationship between Christ and the Old Testament; the Old Testament points toward Christ, but Christ also gives the Old Testament a new meaning. This is what the Holy Father has in mind when he refers to the "obscurity of the texts."

Second, Pope Benedict points out that although the Old Testament only receives its true meaning with Christ, it can also be read so as to stand on its own.

These two points, the complex relationship between Christ and the Old Testament and the apparent self-sufficiency of the Old Testament, are the "good reasons" that Pope Benedict is talking about. So, he is really only talking about the Jews in order to better elucidate the nature of the Old Testament's foreshadowing of Christ. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I see the problem with saying that these two points are "good reasons" for denying that the Old Testament points to Christ. As much as some might like to pretend otherwise, the truth of Christianity is not immediately clear to fallen man, and there often are seemingly good reasons for denying its truth. At any rate, even though the Holy Father does not launch into a tirade against the Jews, he hardly excuses them. Instead, he says that they have rejected the Old Testament by refusing to follow it to Christ. He makes it plainly clear that the Jews have in fact rejected Christ and that this was wrong. So, he is not making excusing the Jews.

(10-02-2011, 10:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: To acknowledge such a simple fact, consider the whole text (and not just selective parts where he says nice things), and face reality is not malicious or blind.

But INPEFESS, I thought I was supposed to ignore the wider context and only look at the two sentences that you wanted to focus on? Now I'm supposed to focus on the whole text? Let's just say what you really mean: people should only look at the parts that you want them to look at so that they will follow your interpretation of the holy Father's words.
Reply
#49
Quote:I apologize for the heated statements I made in my last post in this thread. I shouldn't have gotten caught up statements you were making that were not relevant to the argument.

Think nothing of it. I have forgotten it already.

(10-02-2011, 11:01 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: But INPEFESS, I thought I was supposed to ignore the wider context and only look at the two sentences that you wanted to focus on? Now I'm supposed to focus on the whole text? Let's just say what you really mean: people should only look at the parts that you want them to look at so that they will follow your interpretation of the holy Father's words.

No. I never said that. You are trying to catch me in a trap to make me look incredulous. I am not falling for it and I hope that other honest readers won't either. I said that the context doesn't change the point he was making. I ask and encourage you to read it in context. As I said earlier, his side point is predicated on the context. But the fallacy you commit is that you pretend the side point completely disappears in context. It does not, for they are two completely different questions, though both existing in the same context of Christ bringing light to the texts. The first point refers to Christ bringing light to the text. The second point makes excuses for those (specifically the Jews) who don't see that light--excuses that are not in line with Catholicism. They are two separate questions. The second is predicated on the first, but the second is not changed by the first. If anything, it is the second point that changes the first, not the other way around.

Appealing to context only goes so far. As I demonstrated in an earlier post, making a heretical statement in an orthodox context does not change the fact that the statement is heretical, especially if its heresy is in dealing with a smaller point that only proceeds from the larger point.

Context functions to (1) qualify ambiguity and (2) condition statements. It does not change points that, while being made, already acknowledge the context.

You can't use the context to overlook error and to change what words mean. I could utter all sorts of blasphemy but, provided that I surround it with orthodoxy, it would get a free pass according to your manner of critical reading.

Luther's discourses often focus on the corruption of the Church. He rants about it quite extensively. However, in that rant he makes an attack on the papacy itself. This cannot be excused. But, using your same appraoch, I could excuse it and say that Luther needs to be read in context so as to understand that he was not attacking the papacy itself but rather, in context, only the corruption and abuse of it by those who occupied it. We could sit here making excuse after excuse for heretics all day long, but in the end the truth is what it is.

But that is not being honest; nor is it addressing the point.

As to your explanations, they fail to take into account the fact that BXVI is talking about the Jews' rejection of the Old Testament in light of Christ after Christ had already fulfilled the law. He clearly says this. He is not talking about the Jews' reading of it not in light of 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 acknowledging that, even in light of Christ, the Jews see Christ as not fulfilling the promises. He is saying that they consider the texts in light of Christ and yet reject Him as fulfilling the law. He acknowledges that Christ does bring light to the texts, so the Jews are mistaken, but then he then goes on to absolve them of any guilt and fault by saying that their rejection is not ill-will; it is genuinely because of--what is implied to be--a goof-up on God's part. That is not what Christ taught. There is no excuse to be made for someone who hears the truth and yet does not heed it.

If you're going to read the whole thing in context, you have to read the whole thing in context. You can't marginalize these statements and then direct my attention to other, more orthodox-sounding statements that he makes in his answer. All of these statements should be reconciliable with each other in order to get the full gist of what he is saying. Critical reading does not allow orthodox-sounding statements to be presented to the exclusion of all the problematic statements that are made to address a more specific point predicated on the context.

Appealing to the context when the context doesn't change anything about a side-point being made is an invalid counter-argument.

EDITED: clarity
Reply
#50
Thank you, Jovan, for correcting young grasshopper that Jews do not proselytize.

As a matter of fact they seemed to have helped train us to do the same.

St Teresa of Liseaux, Patron of Missions, pray for us and for the conversion of souls to the Holy Catholic Faith.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)