Has The Faith Of Jews Lessened...

[abercius24]

Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82014&st=60"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...82014&st=60[/url]


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 28 2008, 03:10 PM' post='1585698'[/u]
There is a substantial anti-semitism that exists in the Lefebvrite movement that lead them to not accept the Decrees of Vatican II. They adopt as their own the personal issues many of the Church Fathers had with the Jewish people. We have no legitimate claim to the same feelings of persecution the Early Church had at the hands of the Jews given our current relationship with the Jewish people. And despite the Early Church Father's poor choice of words when speaking of their Jewish persecutors, they still recognized the Jewish people as their older brothers of the Faith.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:54 PM' post='1587499'[/u]
Certainly any kind of racial or ethnic hatred is immoral. Nevertheless, Christianity is the continuation of biblical Judaism, while Rabbinic Judaism – on the other hand – is a false man made religion.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:08 PM' post='1587516'[/u]
That is a harsh way to put it, but yes, that is true. The rabbis reinvented their religion after the complete loss of the Sanhedrin and the Temple.

But, if there is a "conversion of the Jews" to be prayed for (as the Traditional Movements correctly maintain), then there must be an important relationship of Faith that would make their particular conversion of such a distinct importance to us -- and that their relationship with the Old Testament Patriarchs still stands to some degree for them to still be considered Jews. If such a relationship exists, then there still remains a brotherhood to honor.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:22 PM' post='1587535'[/u]
The Eastern Church Fathers held that the Patriarchs believed in the Holy Trinity, and that it was the rabbis during and after the time of Christ who fell away from the true faith. Thus, in a sense Rabbinic Judaism can be called the first major heresy (cf. the letters of St. Ignatios of Antioch), because those who accepted it broke with the undefiled Triadological faith of the Patriarchs of the Old Covenant.

As I see it, it is absolutely vital that any form of theological indifferentism be avoided, because salvation comes only from and through faith in Christ; and so as a Christian I believe it is my duty to pray for the conversion of the Jews living today in order that they may come into a living relationship with the Tri-hypostatic God revealed in sacred scripture, i.e., in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:46 PM' post='1587591'[/u]
For many of the Early Rabbis who explicity rejected Christianity, I would agree. But of those who were in good conscience staying faithful to an assumed continuity with the Old Covenant, there is a level of invincible ignorance that must be recognized with eyes of mercy. The situation of the average Jew at that time was very different than that of Arias or Luther. Only the Jews can honestly claim that they didn't get the message that God had "radically" changed the state of the Faith -- moving the Seat of Moses from The Chief Priest to the Pope, fulfilling in one single person all the hopes and prayers of the prophets in one man who was the One God. That kind of change is much harder to accept than what other heretical movements have been faced with. If anyone can be considered our "lost brethren", it must be the Jews first!
I believe there must be a careful balance between recongizing a relationship and possibly blurring our real differences of faith. And I understand the dangers of giving some people TOO much room to take ecunenism in a direction it simply cannot go without betraying one's identity as a Catholic.

But, there is much to be learned from the hoenst faith of our separated brethren (from those who are in fact honest). When researching biblical resources that affirmed the teachings of the Catholic faith on the internet, I found the Catholic resources very much in need. On common matters of faith -- such as the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the relationship between the Covenants and Salvation History -- I found that Protestants offer much more by way of studying the Greek text, and the Jews offer much more by way of studying the Hebrew text. And their insite into these common elements of the Faith do in fact inspire me to be a better Catholic. But -- that does require that I understand our differences first so as not to betray them when we work together.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:50 PM' post='1587595'[/u]
This moves into speculative waters, because neither you nor I can know if a person is invincibly ignorant of the true faith, we can only judge according to a man's outward actions. Nevertheless, to accept a belief system that is inherently formulated in order to deny Christian truth is damnable.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:53 PM' post='1587605'[/u]
I deny absolutely that the state of the faith was "radically changed," because the faith is immutable. The Old Testament patriarchs and prophets believed in Christ (i.e., in the pre-incarnate Logos), and they worshipped the Holy Trinity.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:02 PM' post='1587619'[/u]
I once believed something akin to this, but as an Eastern Christian I no longer hold that faith is a discursive form of knowledge; instead, faith involves an experiential participation in God's uncreated life and glory through grace.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:05 PM' post='1587627'[/u]
But that assumes that all accepted that system for the sake of denial. It is more realistic to assume that most Jews were unaware of the Truths of the Christian Faith than to assume that all were aware and therefore culpable. And the Rabbis were the teachers of the average Jew before the end of the Old Covenant. Even Christ Himself recognized a teaching authority in the Rabbi to some degree by participating at His own synogogue (particularly when He revealed Himself and was subsequently rejected by His own people). A Jew who continued to participate in his/her faith at the synogogue would have been acting in good conscience unless he/she had explicitly rejected the convincing words of a Christian believer beforehand. The burden falls more on us to sufficiently teach the faith to them than it does on them accepting something they as of yet do not understand or have not yet heard.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:09 PM' post='1587638'[/u]
You and I cannot know what is in another person's mind, but if they embrace a theological system that is inherently anti-Christian, then it follows that we must see them as cut off from the true faith. Whether they are damned or not is up to God.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:11 PM' post='1587647'[/u]
I agree, but because it is intangible and can at best be personally sensed I used an intellectual example to demonstrate. But nonetheless, what good is recognizing the baptism of non-Catholics if we are not at least willing to recognize their participation in grace to some extent -- and their relationship to us by virtue of our sharing in that grace (which yes, is nothing less than a participation in God's uncreated life and glory).

And we cannot deny that God would lovingly appreciate the geniune worship shown by a faithful Jew of the Rabbinnic era despite his/her ignorance of the faith. Is that love shown between the two not a participation in grace to some extent? Perhaps not sanctifying grace (as we would call it in the West), but certainly a relationshp that we would have in common with him/her.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:18 PM' post='1587662'[/u]
Intellectual activity is important, but faith involves an intuitive gift of grace. Thus, neither you nor I can cause someone else to have faith.

What you have done in this conversation is to move from talking about the Rabbinic theological system, which is an objective thing, to the subjective belief of individuals. You and I can judge the former, but the latter can only be judged by God.

Thus, I stand by what I said earlier, Rabbinic Judaism is a false religion.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:29 PM' post='1587683'[/u]
My point is that the likelihood of that subjective situation is very real and must be taken into consideration if we are to be honest and respectful of the Jews. Yes, objectively Rabbinical Judaism is a religion holding to significant error. I disagree that is has completely cut itself off from a relationship with the Old Covenant, and therefore should be recognized as completely cut off from us. Is Rabbinal Judiasm sufficient for salvation? No. Do they worship the same God as we? Yes, absolutely. Is that a substantial tie that should be recognized, especially in those who have not explicitly rejected the Catholic faith? Absolutely. Anything less is simply dishonest.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:31 PM' post='1587689'[/u]
Rabbinic Judaism is simply a man made system, so I have no qualms in saying that it is cut off from the true faith.
/quote


[u]quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:30 PM' post='1587687'[/u]
There is no practicing Jew alive today.
/quote


[u]quote name='abercius24' date='Jul 1 2008, 04:08 AM' post='1587978'[/u]
That is a nice and tiddy academic statement, but not a practical one at all.

At what point did the Jews no longer be Jews? What is the coming of Christ? No, because we recognize that Christ Himself was a Jew who followed all prescriptions of the law perfectly throughout His life. Was it after Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter? No, because Jesus recognized the Seat of Moses in Caiphas when He adjured Him to testify at His trial, thereby recognizing Caiphas' authority as High Priest. Was it after Pentecost? No, because the Early Church struggled with questions as to whether or not Gentile converts needed to follow the Jewish prescriptions of the Old Covenant as did the Jewish Christians. Was it after the Romans assissinated all members of the Jewish priesthood and destroyed the Temple? Perhaps for those Jews who participated in Temple worship amidst the priests. But what about the regular "Joe Schmo" Jew who lived too far from Jerusalem and never made enough money to travel and make an offering at the Temple? The only place of worship that formed their daily lives was the synogogue. And the synogogues never disappeared. Was it when the Rabbis joined at the Council of Jamnia and rejected many elements of the Christian faith -- possibly recognizing many Anti-Catholic elements of the Talmud? Yes, maybe for the high ranking Rabbis at Jamnia. But not for the poor, local rabbi and his congregation whose lives were completely unchanged by Jamnia. To them the decisions of the council would have been little more than interesting news. THEIR SPIRITUAL LIVES WERE UNCHANGED OTHERWISE.

So yes, academically speaking, Rabbinical Judaism has rejected Catholicism and may have a history of anti-Catholic doctrine. Academically speaking, the Jews as a whole have lessened their ties to the Historical Church. But doctrines, beliefs and practices are no more than theoretical concepts if they are not understood from the perspective where they ultimately matter -- at the level of the average believer. As far as the average Jew is concerned, they are attending the same synogogue worship and seder meals as did the Patriarchs. They read of the same Pentateuch as those who descended from Moses. And they have a bloodline and heritage that traces back to the heros that we only read about in the Bible. On a macro level, Judaism has changed substantially. On the individual level, the Jews are practicing the same faith as they did in the time of Christ. And I am offended by those who can be so cavalier as to disregard the relationship they continue to have with the Lord despite their ignorance of the Christian Faith. We gotta keep things in perspective and remember that people matter more than academic postulations.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2008, 12:06 PM' post='1588247'[/u]
All the early Christians were Jews, and Christianity is the true Judaism, because it is the continuation of the religion of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. So anyone who rejected the Messiah, at that very moment ceased being a Jew. In other words, Christians are the true sons of Abraham, because we have embraced the faith of Abraham, as he himself lived it.
This is nonsensical to me as an Eastern Christian, because I do not recognize that there is a distinction to be made between the authority of the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, and the authority of Moses; instead, the bishops truly possess the authority of Moses, since it has been subsumed into the powers of the historic episcopate according to Apostolic Tradition.
You are confusing the Judaizing heretics with the Jewish Christians. In fact, all Christians can be called Jews, so long as you are speaking about the faith of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Christian faith is identical to the faith of the holy ancestors of Christ.
The Herodian Temple was destroyed, but the true Temple, i.e., the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, was not destroyed, nor will it ever be destroyed. The Church is the true Israel, it is the true People of God, it is the place where the divine glory resides, and it offers unfailing worship to the Triune God.
iEkklesia/i and isynagogue/i both mean "assembly" or "congregation," but the Church is the true synagogue, and not the Rabbinic synagogues organized in opposition to the true faith.


The Council of Javneh (Jamnia) can be seen as the moment when Rabbinic Judaism – as opposed to Biblical Judaism – was formed, and it was formed precisely in opposition to the true faith.
You continue to confuse the subjective knowledge of individuals with objective reality. Of course the spiritual lives of those who followed the Rabbis into heresy were changed, and they were changed for the worse, because they no longer had a true living experience of Triune God in worship. Now, whether they knew it or not subjectively, which is irrelevant to our present discussion, they had in fact left behind the faith of their Father Abraham, because they no longer worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as scripture says, "No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Thus, I will simply reiterate what I have said before: Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion; while Christianity is the revealed religion of both the Old and the New Testaments.
/quote


[u]quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:12 PM' post='1588306'[/u]
I completely disagree. The dogmas and doctrines of the faith are in fact immutable experiential encounters with God, and the customs and practices that arise within the Church's liturgical life over the course of the centuries are expressions of the divinely inspired Tradition, which they convey to us as a living reality. Tradition (even at the level of particular customs), dogma, and doctrine, are not reducible to abstract concepts; instead, they are the very living experience of God, who always remains essentially beyond human thought and predication, while He simultaneously condescends to be experienced through His manifesting energies.

The quotation below explains the Eastern Christian position on this issue in a more comprehensive manner than my own comments above:

[u]quote[/u]

Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of "the development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" ("regula fidei;" o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that "spiritual Vision" which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation.

Fr. Georges Florovsky, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology," this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (München, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh

/quote

Once again, your posts tend to confuse subjective intellectual knowledge with objective experiential reality.
/quote

[KnightofChrist]

Christ modified the ceremonial laws at the last supper, so the old ceremonials are no longer in force, therefor the Jewish religion no long has efficacy. There is not a single practicing Jew any more, not one. To be a practicing Jew, you have to be able to offer sacrifice in the temple the temple no longer exist.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588247' date='Jul 1 2008, 12:06 PM']All the early Christians were Jews, and Christianity is the true Judaism, because it is the continuation of the religion of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. So anyone who rejected the Messiah, at that very moment ceased being a Jew.[/quote]

Again, you either assume that all explicitly rejected Christ as Messiah or all are otherwise responsible for their ignorance. Neither of those are plausible scenarios. Apostacy is first a personal choice, not just a collective condition.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588306' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:12 PM']In other words, Christians are the true sons of Abraham, because we have embraced the faith of Abraham, as he himself lived it.
This is nonsensical to me as an Eastern Christian, because I do not recognize that there is a distinction to be made between the authority of the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, and the authority of Moses; instead, the bishops truly possess the authority of Moses, since it has been subsumed into the powers of the historic episcopate according to Apostolic Tradition.
You are confusing the Judaizing heretics with the Jewish Christians. In fact, all Christians can be called Jews, so long as you are speaking about the faith of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Christian faith is identical to the faith of the holy ancestors of Christ.
The Herodian Temple was destroyed, but the true Temple, i.e., the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, was not destroyed, nor will it ever be destroyed. The Church is the true Israel, it is the true People of God, it is the place where the divine glory resides, and it offers unfailing worship to the Triune God.
iEkklesia/i and isynagogue/i both mean "assembly" or "congregation," but the Church is the true synagogue, and not the Rabbinic synagogues organized in opposition to the true faith.[/quote]

I am not confusing the Judaizers with the Jewish Christians. The Judaizer heresy came about BECAUSE the Apostles were holding Jewish Christians to the prescriptions of the Old Covenant. In the Early Church, Jewish converts were required to continue the practice of the Jewish faith alongside their Christian faith. It wasn't until centuries later that requirement was lifted by the magesterium.

But what seems to go unrecognized in your statement is that there was a transition that occured. Peter and the Apostles were the Bishops holding the Seat of Moses at the very same time the High Priest held the seat of Moses. The 2 eras of the Church blur given certain circumstances. What I don't understand is why you believe that blurring has completely been done away with in the case of a Jew ignorant of Christ as Messiah who still continues to hold the capacity to worship the God of the Patriarchs in a manner no less that of Abraham.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588306' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:12 PM']The Council of Javneh (Jamnia) can be seen as the moment when Rabbinic Judaism – as opposed to Biblical Judaism – was formed, and it was formed precisely in opposition to the true faith.
You continue to confuse the subjective knowledge of individuals with objective reality. Of course the spiritual lives of those who followed the Rabbis into heresy were changed, and they were changed for the worse, because they no longer had a true living experience of Triune God in worship. Now, whether they knew it or not subjectively, which is irrelevant to our present discussion, they had in fact left behind the faith of their Father Abraham, because they no longer worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as scripture says, "No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Thus, I will simply reiterate what I have said before: Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion; while Christianity is the revealed religion of both the Old and the New Testaments.[/quote]

Again you assume the average Jew was willingly complicite with the statements made by the Council of Jamnia. I don't believe that the average Jew necessarily would have cared about Jamnia one way or another. And I am not being speculative here. I am denying the validity of your assumption that complicity exists in ALL cases. It is more accurate to say that faithful Jews have been left behind by US who have not yet convinced them of Christ as Messaih than it is to say they have left behind the Faith of Abraham.

And I fail to see the logical jump that is made in stating the Jews worship the Triune God in any less manner than the Patriarchs who themselves were ignorant of God's Triune nature.


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588306' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:12 PM']I completely disagree. The dogmas and doctrines of the faith are in fact immutable experiential encounters with God, and the customs and practices that arise within the Church's liturgical life over the course of the centuries are expressions of the divinely inspired Tradition, which they convey to us as a living reality. Tradition (even at the level of particular customs), dogma, and doctrine, are not reducible to abstract concepts; instead, they are the very living experience of God, who always remains essentially beyond human thought and predication, while He simultaneously condescends to be experienced through His manifesting energies.

The quotation below explains the Eastern Christian position on this issue in a more comprehensive manner than my own comments above:

[quote]

Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of "the development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" ("regula fidei;" o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that "spiritual Vision" which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation.

Fr. Georges Florovsky, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology," this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (München, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh[/quote]

Once again, your posts tend to confuse subjective intellectual knowledge with objective experiential reality.
[/quote]

There is nothing subjective about this. I am merely considering Objective Truth within controlled circumstances.

And again, your statements are making the experience of God's grace more valuable than the individuals who are meant to experience it. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." It is dangerous to arbitrarily state that God pulled away the relationship He once had with faithful Jews simply because there is a greater relationship to now be had! If they are ignorant of what they are missing yet faithful in what has been revealed to them, then they are stuck in the blur of the transition. You and I have no place stating that the Old Testament has ended for them personally until Christ truly comes to them as Messiah and they explicitly reject Him.

Edited July 2, 2008 by abercius24

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1588740' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:55 PM']Christ modified the ceremonial laws at the last supper, so the old ceremonials are no longer in force, therefor the Jewish religion no long has efficacy. There is not a single practicing Jew any more, not one. To be a practicing Jew, you have to be able to offer sacrifice in the temple the temple no longer exist.[/quote]
As an Eastern Christian I do not believe that the old rituals are modified or abrogated; instead, they have been fulfilled. In other words, I have kept them all in Christ, because what He did applies to me as a member of His body.

Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion, and as such it has no salvific value.

[abercius24]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1588740' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:55 PM']Christ modified the ceremonial laws at the last supper, so the old ceremonials are no longer in force, therefor the Jewish religion no long has efficacy. There is not a single practicing Jew any more, not one. To be a practicing Jew, you have to be able to offer sacrifice in the temple the temple no longer exist.[/quote]

The Jewish faith never had efficacy in the first place. It was merely a shadow (of what was to come) from which one's personal devotion to God opened them to the coming of Christ and His redemptive work. That was basically the idea behind John's baptism, as well. Remember what the Prophet Jeremiah taught (which St. Paul later reiterated), it is a circumcision of the heart that made a Jew, not the ceremonies themselves. And if that circumcision of heart still remains with Jews today, then there are still practicing Jews to be found.

Edited July 2, 2008 by abercius24

[KnightofChrist]

The Jewish faith had efficacy, that is effectiveness to produce a desired effect.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588759' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:13 PM']As an Eastern Christian I do not believe that the old rituals are modified or abrogated; instead, they have been fulfilled. In other words, I have kept them all in Christ, because what He did applies to me as a member of His body.

Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion, and as such it has no salvific value.[/quote]

No more salvific value than the Old Covenant had? Salvation was not to be found in the Old Covenant, merely a preparation. That still exists today with Rabbinic Jews who have not explicitly rejected Christ as Messiah.

[abercius24]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1588768' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:20 PM']The Jewish faith had efficacy, that is effectiveness to produce a desired effect.[/quote]

No efficacy as far as Sanctifying Grace is concerned.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1588742' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:56 PM']Again, you either assume that all explicitly rejected Christ as Messiah or all are otherwise responsible for their ignorance. Neither of those are plausible scenarios. Apostacy is first a personal choice, not just a collective condition.[/quote]
Abercius (Steve),

For the debate to continue, you must stop bringing the subjective element into it, because neither you nor I can know why a person decides to join a specific religion, nor can we know who is or is not saved, because only God knows that. What we are debating in this thread is the Rabbinic theological system, which arose after the time of Christ, and which was formulated in opposition to the Christian faith. That said, as I see, the Rabbinic doctrinal system is an offense against God because it explicitly rejects the divine sonship of Jesus Christ and that He alone is the Savior of the world. Moreover, to hold a position other than this involves the heresy of theological indifferentism.

Todd

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588759' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:13 PM']As an Eastern Christian I do not believe that the old rituals are modified or abrogated; instead, they have been fulfilled. In other words, I have kept them all in Christ, because what He did applies to me as a member of His body.

Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion, and as such it has no salvific value.[/quote]

I too believe they where fulfilled. Yet how does one correctly communicated the 'change' between the way the ceremonial laws where practiced then and the way they are practice by the Church now?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1588768' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:20 PM']The Jewish faith had efficacy, that is effectiveness to produce a desired effect.[/quote]
The Christian faith is the true Jewish faith, and so it must not be confused with the doctrinal system created by the Rabbis after the time of Christ.

The Church Fathers held that Abraham believed in and worshipped the Triune God; for he conversed with the pre-incarnate Logos, and the Holy Spirit, and, through communion with them, he worshipped the Father.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588772' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:21 PM']Abercius (Steve),

For the debate to continue, you must stop bringing the subjective element into it, because neither you nor I can know why a person decides to join a specific religion, nor can we know who is or is not saved, because only God knows that. What we are debating in this thread is the Rabbinic theological system, which arose after the time of Christ, and which was formulated in opposition to the Christian faith. That said, as I see, the Rabbinic doctrinal system is an offense against God because it explicitly rejects the divine sonship of Jesus Christ and that He alone is the Savior of the world. Moreover, to hold a position other than this involves the heresy of theological indifferentism.

Todd[/quote]

You give me too little credit, Todd. I believe you are misunderstanding me. It is an objective truth that a Rabbinic Jew has the capacity to not reject Christ as Messiah despite their membership as a Rabbinic Jew. You don't find that reality enough, whereas I believe we have a moral obligation to assume the best. We agree that the system is invalid. What we are debating is whether the state of the system determines the state of the individual.

And by the way, if this thread seems confrontational, please let me know and I will end it. I was under the impresssion that you were enjoying our conversation. I apologize if I was wrong.

Edited July 2, 2008 by abercius24

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1588777' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:25 PM']I too believe they where fulfilled. Yet how does one correctly communicated the 'change' between the way the ceremonial laws where practiced then and the way they are practice by the Church now?[/quote]
There is no change, because Christ "is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (cf. Hebrews 13:8). Now when this theological truth is applied as the Church Fathers understood it, the answer becomes clear, for when a Christian is baptized, all that Christ did in living the Torah is applied spiritually to him (i.e., the baptized Christian).

I reject anything that posits a substantive change in faith between the two Testaments, and so the Old Testament faith is identical with the faith proclaimed in the New Testament, because they are one and the same. Moreover, the Catholic Church is the true Temple, the true Israel, it is the true People of God, and as such she is the fulfillment of all the promises made in the Old Covenant.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1588778' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:26 PM']The Church Fathers held that Abraham believed in and worshipped the Triune God; for he conversed with the pre-incarnate Logos, and the Holy Spirit, and, through communion with them, he worshipped the Father.[/quote]

Very interesting, and a rather shocking statement on the part of the Church Fathers. Do you mind if I ask you for some citations? I'd like to look it up myself for my own personal study.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1588784' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:30 PM']You give me too little credit, Todd. I believe you are misunderstanding me. It is an objective truth that a Rabbinic Jew has the capacity to not reject Christ as Messiah despite their membership as a Rabbinic Jew.[/quote]
Now you are confusing possibilities with truth. Truth is objective, while a man's failure to apprehend truth is a subjective state of knowledge within his own personal being. You are also confusing "facts" with truth. It is a fact that a man can subjectively fall into error, but that does not make his subjective action in doing so "true"; instead, it is simply a fact, i.e., an actually existing state or condition, that he has embraced error.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Apotheoun