A rolled-away stone gathers Moss: from Judaism to Catholicism

But why the words "Us" and "Our"?

I thought post #72 was a pretty good speculation as an answer to this question. Did you read that?

I think that's a stretch, the angels cannot create. There has to be something else going on there

Again, #72. I'm not a literalist so it doesn't bother me.

What you define as "Judaism" of the 2nd Temple period are fringe beliefs found mostly in the "wisdom" literature, intertestamental writings and apocryphal writings which mainstream Judaism didn't find necessary to include in the Tanakh

First, Proverbs is part of the Tanakh. Secondly, as you certainly know, extra-Biblical writings further define Judaism - the Mishna, Talmud, etc. They are not "separate" from "mainstream" Judaism. The above writings are commentaries on the Scriptures and the oral traditions which interpreted these same Scriptures. I do not get the indication that the above are "fringe" writings.

Since you dismiss out of hand the "mainstream" Judaism of the time...

I believe you might agree that scholars are the ones who will determine what "mainstream Judaism" of the Second Temple era is. Current Judaism, if I am not mistaken, is NOT the same as that ancient Judaism, primarily because of the destruction of the Second Temple. The sacrificial system was destroyed as a result. It is anachronistic to apply current worship to a system that no longer exists. Thus, WE rely on the writings that exist to figure out WHAT mainstream Judaism was: the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the intertestemental writings, and the later writings found in the Septuagint.

To me, an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Jew" is one who seems to harbor ideas of hatred towards another group based on false ideas or impression. I don't know the basis of why you are called anti-Catholic. But for me to be an "anti-Jew", I would have to first call Jews unwarranted names or titles to them that belittle them. You claim that I am anti-Jew because I misrepresent what Jews are. I disagree with that, because I am not trying to give the beliefs and ideas of CURRENT Jews - but my understanding (from scholarly Jewish books) of the SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM. This period is subject to opinions of scholars - it no longer exists and hasn't for 2000 years. Thus, am I misrepresenting "mainstream Judaism" of 50 AD, or your IDEA of "mainstream Judaism"?

I will defer to you when we discuss current Jewish practices, but I find that Second Temple Judaism is still open to the opinions of scholars and those who read their material.

Regards

I love the first design (the white on black)! :)) It made my morning!

Thanks for the note about the new book, I'll keep an eye out for it!

One of our youth ministers at church has that shirt. I really like it!

I'm going to order the Tiber Swim Team shirt though, wear it, and see how many people get it (if any).

Jews don't believe the messiah has come yet. The "Jews" that do are actually Christians. Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions. Judaism is not a subset of Christianity.

Trying to pretend that "Jewish experts" who actually do acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Lord represent all of Judaism is disrepectful to the millions of Jews who do not believe it. Prosletize and convert as you will, but you ought to acknowledge the legitimacy of those that disagree (Jews who practice Judaism). This, I don't see in your writings.

First, Proverbs is part of the Tanakh. Secondly, as you certainly know, extra-Biblical writings further define Judaism - the Mishna, Talmud, etc. They are not "separate" from "mainstream" Judaism. The above writings are commentaries on the Scriptures and the oral traditions which interpreted these same Scriptures. I do not get the indication that the above are "fringe" writings.

Always a red herring with you. I'll humor you and let you think you're educating me in Judaism. As I mentioned before and again you didn't listen, your interpretation (and that's really all it is) of "wisdom" literature comes mostly from INTERTESTAMENTAL & APOCRYPHAL writings that Jews didn't think belonged in the Tanakh. Your "interpretation" of verses that mention wisdom in Proverbs notwithstanding. Talmudic writings are something totally different. They are commentary.

I believe you might agree that scholars are the ones who will determine what "mainstream Judaism" of the Second Temple era is. Current Judaism, if I am not mistaken, is NOT the same as that ancient Judaism, primarily because of the destruction of the Second Temple. The sacrificial system was destroyed as a result. It is anachronistic to apply current worship to a system that no longer exists. Thus, WE rely on the writings that exist to figure out WHAT mainstream Judaism was: the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the intertestemental writings, and the later writings found in the Septuagint.

No "WE" don't, you do. Just because the sacrificial system was no longer didn't mean "Mitzvah" began as a substitute. The prophets were pioneers in telling us that God desired obedience over sacrifice way before the sacrifices stopped. And Yes, you are mistaken. Judaism isn't something that began in 90ad no matter how much you'd like to believe and define it for us.

To me, an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Jew" is one who seems to harbor ideas of hatred towards another group based on false ideas or impression. I don't know the basis of why you are called anti-Catholic. But for me to be an "anti-Jew", I would have to first call Jews unwarranted names or titles to them that belittle them.

Oh ok. The bar has changed. For most Catholics on these threads all you have to do is disagree to be called anti-Catholic. If that's not you ok. I guess I was referring to most of your friends then.

You claim that I am anti-Jew because I misrepresent what Jews are. I disagree with that, because I am not trying to give the beliefs and ideas of CURRENT Jews - but my understanding (from scholarly Jewish books) of the SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM. This period is subject to opinions of scholars - it no longer exists and hasn't for 2000 years. Thus, am I misrepresenting "mainstream Judaism" of 50 AD, or your IDEA of "mainstream Judaism"?

No Judaism has evolved back then to what it is now. Catholecism has certainly evolved as well. You pick and choose the scholars that help you define what you want Jews to be. You shouldn't be doing that. You're offended when outsiders attempt to do the same thing with your church.

I will defer to you when we discuss current Jewish practices, but I find that Second Temple Judaism is still open to the opinions of scholars and those who read their material.

Ok if you're going to be bulled headed I'll entertain all of the opinions put forth that todays' church looks nothing like it did in the first century and also remain open to the idea that maybe its not the same thing at all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander I guess.

Jews don't believe the messiah has come yet. The "Jews" that do are actually Christians. Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions. Judaism is not a subset of Christianity.

I know. And my posts have tended to state that Christianity was a subset of Judaism, not the other way around!

Trying to pretend that "Jewish experts" who actually do acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Lord represent all of Judaism is disrepectful to the millions of Jews who do not believe it.

I apologize if I have offended you. I was merely making a statement that some authors have noted regarding so-called Jewish Wisdom literature. The Hebrew Scriptures themselves note at times either a plurality of persons in the Godhead or a Wisdom that is seen along with God, an attribute that has some sort of "personhood". Some Jews of the period have NOT interpreted this the same way you seem to. If you have read my posts, you will note that I have a deep respect for the Jewish roots of Christianity - and much of our beliefs come from Judaism of the Second Temple era. I do acknowledge the legitimacy of anyone who disagrees with me.

Regards

Oh ok. The bar has changed. For most Catholics on these threads all you have to do is disagree to be called anti-Catholic. If that's not you ok. I guess I was referring to most of your friends then.

I can only speak for myself. All Catholics on this forum do not meet on Saturdays somewhere to define everything and go over our gameplan for the next week. I don't care to be judged by the experiences you had with someone else.

Judaism has evolved back then to what it is now. Catholecism has certainly evolved as well.

Of course it has. But I am not judging Judaism of today, like you like to judge Catholicism of today. My thoughts are going to the transition that occured in the first Century of the Common Era. As a Catholic, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who has come once in suffering, and will fulfill the rest of OT prophesies when He comes again in glory. Being that He was a Jew, it is not unusual that the Church that He started would have some Jewish charecteristics. After further study, I find that it did and continues to in many cases, whether you like it or not.

That was my point. I don't know why you escalated this to beyond my intent. I was merely making a point of contact between our two religions. Why the name calling and complaining about supercessionism? Never did I say anything negative about Judaism, past or present, and never did I even mention such comments as "Catholics have abrogated Judaism" or "the Church has now replaced the People of God of the OT". Perhaps next time, you should read what others write and not jump to conclusions. In no way was I being disrespectful towards Judaism!

What is sad is that you got in a fit last time we discussed such matters. My mistake was to try to ask you a question about a book, thinking you could give me an educated or respectful opinion. I should have known better that you would jump right to name-calling...

I apologize for upseting you. Rest assured, I have no intention on addressing you again, so hopefully, I won't upset you.

Regards and Goodbye

I apologize for upseting you. Rest assured, I have no intention on addressing you again, so hopefully, I won't upset you.

Thank you. Maybe you think twice next time before quoting "fringe" Jewish material and telling us its Judaism. Which is tantamount to me quoting Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and then proclaim that they speak for your church.