How Do Jews Go to Heaven
KeskusteluLet's Talk Religion
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
1bibliophile613
I eagerly awaited Pope Francis's declaration that Jews can go to heaven - not because I need his approval but to understand how it is possible given Catholic theology. As I eagerly read through the COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
"THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE"(Rom 11:29)A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF "NOSTRA AETATE" (NO.4), this is what I found:
That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.
Is anyone else dissatisfied?
"THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE"(Rom 11:29)A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF "NOSTRA AETATE" (NO.4), this is what I found:
That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.
Is anyone else dissatisfied?
2paradoxosalpha
All things are feasible and nothing whatsoever is truly possible in the monster that is institutional theology.
Go to these Fiends of Righteousness
Tell them to obey their Humanities, & not pretend Holiness;
When they are murderers: as far as my Hammer & Anvil permit
Go, tell them that the Worship of God, is honouring his gifts
In other men: & loving the greatest men best. each according
To his Genius; which is the Holy Ghost in Man; there is no other
God, than that God who is the intellectual fountain of Humanity:
He who envies or calumniates: which is murder & cruelty,
Murders the Holy-one! (William Blake, Jerusalem)
3John5918
>1 bibliophile613: an unfathomable divine mystery. Is anyone else dissatisfied?
I can't really say I'm dissatisfied. Unconditional love, mercy and forgiveness on the part of God are unfathomable mysteries which cannot be reduced to merely human understanding, but they are real, whether or not I (or the pope, for that matter) can fathom them.
This may be relevant to the conversation, as Nostrae aetate is one of the documents it references:
The development of doctrine is fidelity in newness (Vatican News)
I quote in full the final paragraph:
The way of Jesus: new and old things
Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, “but to fullfill it” (Mt 5:17). He taught us not to break “even the smallest of these precepts” (Mt 5:19). Yet he was accused of violating the mosaic rules, such as the Sabbath rest or the prohibition of associating with public sinners. And the apostles took the great leap: they abolished the sacred obligation of circumcision, dating back even to Abraham and in force for 2000 years, and opened the door to the pagans - something unthinkable at that time. “Behold,” says the Lord, “I make all things new” (Rev 21, 5). It is the “new wine” of evangelical love that always suffers the risk of being put in the “old wineskins” of our religious security, which so often silences the living God who never stops speaking to us. It is the wisdom of the “disciple of the kingdom of heaven” who seeks the fullness of the Law and justice that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, bringing out “new and old things from his treasure” (Mt 13:52). Not new things only, nor only old things.
I can't really say I'm dissatisfied. Unconditional love, mercy and forgiveness on the part of God are unfathomable mysteries which cannot be reduced to merely human understanding, but they are real, whether or not I (or the pope, for that matter) can fathom them.
This may be relevant to the conversation, as Nostrae aetate is one of the documents it references:
The development of doctrine is fidelity in newness (Vatican News)
I quote in full the final paragraph:
The way of Jesus: new and old things
Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, “but to fullfill it” (Mt 5:17). He taught us not to break “even the smallest of these precepts” (Mt 5:19). Yet he was accused of violating the mosaic rules, such as the Sabbath rest or the prohibition of associating with public sinners. And the apostles took the great leap: they abolished the sacred obligation of circumcision, dating back even to Abraham and in force for 2000 years, and opened the door to the pagans - something unthinkable at that time. “Behold,” says the Lord, “I make all things new” (Rev 21, 5). It is the “new wine” of evangelical love that always suffers the risk of being put in the “old wineskins” of our religious security, which so often silences the living God who never stops speaking to us. It is the wisdom of the “disciple of the kingdom of heaven” who seeks the fullness of the Law and justice that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, bringing out “new and old things from his treasure” (Mt 13:52). Not new things only, nor only old things.
4Crypto-Willobie
I assume that good Jews who lived before Jesus of Nazareth went to heaven. Is it only since his crucifixion that some believe that Jews who were just as good don't go to heaven?
5Watry
I can't answer for Catholics, but Protestants tend to have one of two views:
1. Jews are still God's chosen people, the covenant still holds, and Jews go to heaven.
2. Jews were expected to accept the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. Jews do not go to heaven because of their incorrect belief that Jesus is not the Messiah.
Generally people believe that Jews who lived pre-Crucifixion did go to heaven, though.
1. Jews are still God's chosen people, the covenant still holds, and Jews go to heaven.
2. Jews were expected to accept the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. Jews do not go to heaven because of their incorrect belief that Jesus is not the Messiah.
Generally people believe that Jews who lived pre-Crucifixion did go to heaven, though.
6paradoxosalpha
So, Jesus manifested God on Earth in order to deny heaven to some Jews. Check.
They're better off without "pie in the sky when you die" anyhow. There's no trace of the idea in the historically primary components of Hebrew scripture.
They're better off without "pie in the sky when you die" anyhow. There's no trace of the idea in the historically primary components of Hebrew scripture.
7bibliophile613
I am still left unsatisfied. How can it be said that only through belief in Jesus can one go to heaven and at the same time be said that those who do not believe in Jesus go to heaven. It seems that at best the doctrine should be, belief in Jesus is "a" way to go to heaven.
As for the Protestants, was the later Martin Luther any better than John Chrysostom when it came to hating and railing against the Jews? I think the Church still has much for which to repent. see:Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader k – August 1, 2012 by Brooks Schramm (Author, Editor), Kirsi I. Stjerna (Editor) And do they "love" the Jews other than for the eschatological role they play in the "second" coming?
As for the Protestants, was the later Martin Luther any better than John Chrysostom when it came to hating and railing against the Jews? I think the Church still has much for which to repent. see:Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader k – August 1, 2012 by Brooks Schramm (Author, Editor), Kirsi I. Stjerna (Editor) And do they "love" the Jews other than for the eschatological role they play in the "second" coming?
8John5918
>7 bibliophile613: belief in Jesus is "a" way to go to heaven
I've heard that point made by Catholic theologians, although at this stage I can't remember where, that in a time when there was a great deal of despair and hopelessness, the Good News was that there is a way in the person of Jesus, but not necessarily that he is the only way. So you could be right.
But there's also a lot of room for leeway when we cease focusing so much on the historical person of Jesus and explore the Christ, the Logos, the Alpha and Omega, the Cosmic Christ, the Word who was "in the beginning", the Universal Christ.
I've heard that point made by Catholic theologians, although at this stage I can't remember where, that in a time when there was a great deal of despair and hopelessness, the Good News was that there is a way in the person of Jesus, but not necessarily that he is the only way. So you could be right.
But there's also a lot of room for leeway when we cease focusing so much on the historical person of Jesus and explore the Christ, the Logos, the Alpha and Omega, the Cosmic Christ, the Word who was "in the beginning", the Universal Christ.
9Watry
Since I'm the only one who's mentioned Protestants--I'm only culturally Christian, but I was raised a combo of Baptist and Methodist so I thought I'd answer Crypto-Willobie's question.
Martin Luther was a terrible person and an enormous bigot with regards to both Jews and women (and possibly brown people? Haven't done the research). Not going to defend him, see above.
Martin Luther was a terrible person and an enormous bigot with regards to both Jews and women (and possibly brown people? Haven't done the research). Not going to defend him, see above.
10bibliophile613
I hate to tell you, but "the Christ, the Logos, the Alpha and Omega, the Cosmic Christ, the Word who was "in the beginning", the Universal Christ" creates no additional leeway for Jews.
11John5918
>10 bibliophile613:
In your opinion, maybe. In the opinion of a number of theologians it creates leeway for all sorts of things outside the narrow identity group of people who identify as "Christian". But even that is not necessary if one sticks with the "unconditional love, mercy and forgiveness" which I mention in >3 John5918:. We can't understand how it works, but it does. Unfathomable mystery.
In your opinion, maybe. In the opinion of a number of theologians it creates leeway for all sorts of things outside the narrow identity group of people who identify as "Christian". But even that is not necessary if one sticks with the "unconditional love, mercy and forgiveness" which I mention in >3 John5918:. We can't understand how it works, but it does. Unfathomable mystery.
12Rood
A Sunday School teacher once asked the children in her class to raise their hands if they wanted to go to heaven. Every one of the children raised their hands ... everyone, that is, except Little Suzy.
"Little Suzy", the teacher exclaimed in shock and disbelief ... "Don't you want to go to heaven?"
"Not if that's where they're going!", said Little Suzy.
I'm with Little Suzy.
"Little Suzy", the teacher exclaimed in shock and disbelief ... "Don't you want to go to heaven?"
"Not if that's where they're going!", said Little Suzy.
I'm with Little Suzy.
13John5918
>12 Rood:
Reminds me of the old Catholic joke about St Peter giving a new arrival a tour of heaven. "Here are the Anglicans", he says. "Over there are the Jews, then you can see the Hindus on your left, on the right are the Muslims, then the Buddhists, Orthodox Christians, Baptists, Lutherans..." (etc, etc). The newcomer asks, "What's behind that very tall wall over there?" Peter replies, "Oh, that's the Catholics. They think they're the only ones here!"
On that note, it's always worth looking at Rowan Atkinson's sketch Welcome to Hell.
Reminds me of the old Catholic joke about St Peter giving a new arrival a tour of heaven. "Here are the Anglicans", he says. "Over there are the Jews, then you can see the Hindus on your left, on the right are the Muslims, then the Buddhists, Orthodox Christians, Baptists, Lutherans..." (etc, etc). The newcomer asks, "What's behind that very tall wall over there?" Peter replies, "Oh, that's the Catholics. They think they're the only ones here!"
On that note, it's always worth looking at Rowan Atkinson's sketch Welcome to Hell.
14Rood
>3 John5918: "And the apostles took the great leap: they abolished the sacred obligation of circumcision, dating back even to Abraham and in force for 2000 years, and opened the door to the pagans - something unthinkable at that time."
Not quite. Paul only abolished the 'requirement' for those who wanted to become followers of Jesus, but, as Timothy would attest ... the act itself was never proscribed (Acts 16). According to Paul ... Christians and anyone else can mutilate their genitals if they so please ... It's purely up to their own private, personal inclinations.
Additionally, the belief that Male Genital Mutilation in Judaism dates back to the putative life of one Abram is pure speculation, devised by Jewish Priests, during the Babylonian Captivity, from whole cloth ... a good thousand years after the supposed life of one Abram.
New verses (Genesis 17) were then slipped surreptitiously into the Biblical narrative by busy Jewish scribes, primarily to help distinguish the "captives" from intact Babylonian males: Male Genital Mutilation then becoming a handy substitute for the traditional animal sacrifices performed in front of the Temple in Jerusalem. No longer possible in far-off Babylon, animal sacrifices were originally in fulfillment of the ORIGINAL covenant between Jews and their god. The scribes just failed to eliminate Genesis 15 from the narrative
Not quite. Paul only abolished the 'requirement' for those who wanted to become followers of Jesus, but, as Timothy would attest ... the act itself was never proscribed (Acts 16). According to Paul ... Christians and anyone else can mutilate their genitals if they so please ... It's purely up to their own private, personal inclinations.
Additionally, the belief that Male Genital Mutilation in Judaism dates back to the putative life of one Abram is pure speculation, devised by Jewish Priests, during the Babylonian Captivity, from whole cloth ... a good thousand years after the supposed life of one Abram.
New verses (Genesis 17) were then slipped surreptitiously into the Biblical narrative by busy Jewish scribes, primarily to help distinguish the "captives" from intact Babylonian males: Male Genital Mutilation then becoming a handy substitute for the traditional animal sacrifices performed in front of the Temple in Jerusalem. No longer possible in far-off Babylon, animal sacrifices were originally in fulfillment of the ORIGINAL covenant between Jews and their god. The scribes just failed to eliminate Genesis 15 from the narrative
15John5918
>14 Rood:
Reading it in context I would suggest it means they abolished the requirement for circumcision. As you say, there is no evidence that they abolished circumcision in the sense of banning or proscribing it.
Reading it in context I would suggest it means they abolished the requirement for circumcision. As you say, there is no evidence that they abolished circumcision in the sense of banning or proscribing it.
16bibliophile613
LOL
17timspalding
>1 bibliophile613:
There's a lot to say about this. But even leaving aside Jews, for whom additional things can be said, we can start with the simple truth that while Christ saves, knowing, explicit belief in Christ isn't necessary for salvation. Many who don't know Christ are saved, and, it seems, many who think they do know Christ, are not. This is the message of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats .
Lumen Gentium has this formulation:
The OP seems to propose a Protestant conception of the thing. Okay. Who doesn't like a 500-year-old heresy? But that's not the context Pope Francis and the majority of Christians in the world have.
There's a lot to say about this. But even leaving aside Jews, for whom additional things can be said, we can start with the simple truth that while Christ saves, knowing, explicit belief in Christ isn't necessary for salvation. Many who don't know Christ are saved, and, it seems, many who think they do know Christ, are not. This is the message of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats .
Lumen Gentium has this formulation:
"Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."This is largely picked up verbatim in the Catechism (§847).
The OP seems to propose a Protestant conception of the thing. Okay. Who doesn't like a 500-year-old heresy? But that's not the context Pope Francis and the majority of Christians in the world have.
18-pilgrim-
>1 bibliophile613:
Unless you follow the Arian heresy, then Christ has existed from the beginning, before His incarnation. He is manifest (although not corporeally) in the Old Testament. Therefore devout Jews are also following Him, in some sense.
Furthermore, Jesus said that "I am the Way, not "following me is the only way". He saves mankind by His incarnation, life, teaching, passion and death. Without this grace we would none of us be saved, so on that sense he is the only Way.
So although consciously rebelling against His teaching can cut you off from salvation (unless you resident), devoutly seeking to follow the Messiah is not rebellion (even if it makes an error over identification).
Unless you follow the Arian heresy, then Christ has existed from the beginning, before His incarnation. He is manifest (although not corporeally) in the Old Testament. Therefore devout Jews are also following Him, in some sense.
Furthermore, Jesus said that "I am the Way, not "following me is the only way". He saves mankind by His incarnation, life, teaching, passion and death. Without this grace we would none of us be saved, so on that sense he is the only Way.
So although consciously rebelling against His teaching can cut you off from salvation (unless you resident), devoutly seeking to follow the Messiah is not rebellion (even if it makes an error over identification).
