lilac_angel Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Also, how can I be at odds with Paul's teachings when I quoted another passage by him on evangelization? Edited February 10, 2009 by lilac_angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 well he sure didn't tell them to do it in secret or to lie to them when asked about it. read what Paul did in the Acts of the Apostles... he only once apologized for insulting them but that's when he realized he had inadvertantly insulted the High Priest, and he only apologized because he didn't believe in insulting leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 [quote name='lilac_angel' post='1777291' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:10 PM']Also, how can I be at odds with Paul's teachings when I quoted another passage on him and evangelization? [/quote] because your interpretation is anachronistic and not in line with what St. Paul meant (nor clearly how he lived, or he wouldn't have ended up in jail so often). I'm not saying you have to go around saying to any Jew you meet "hello, you are my enemy!"... but that's not what +Williamson did. He was asked about his position on Rabbinic Judaism, and he defined his position the way St. Paul defined the position of Christianity towards the Jews: they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, enemies (in their religion which denies Christ) for the sake of the gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilac_angel Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1777288' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:09 PM']I have to agree with you-I think St. Paul's time was very different than our own-"Jews" of that day were actively persecuting Christians for their beliefs. I don't think shouting "convert, enemies of the gosepl" is really going to make anyone consider the Church...-Katie[/quote] In today's world, it doesn't seem like it would work with the majority of people, as true as the word "enemies" may be to describe anyone who isn't Christian. Aren't atheists and Muslims enemies of the Gospel now, too? Why don't we include others who spit on the Gospel? Now, that method may work for some, and it may be some people's strength to do it in an effective manner, just as other methods of evangelization are other people's strengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Rabbinic Judaism is pretty much the first and oldest enemy of the gospel; its existence as a religion is a scandal for the core of our claim as a religion; because we claim to be the continuation of the Old Testament and so do they. The Muslim's claim to be a continuation of the Old Testament is about as believable as Joseph Smith and the Mormons' claim to be a continuation of Christ's message, so they bear less consideration; but one might say that the Arab people are beloved by God for the sake of Ishmael, their ancestor, but Islam is an enemy of the gospel; same as how the Jewish people are beloved for the sake of their fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et cetera) but the Jewish religion is the enemy of the gospel. Now, Paul's statement (and +Williamson's) is much less aimed at being an argument to convert the Jews as it is a statement to the Christians as to how to interpret who the Jews are. Some things in the Church are for the sake of evangelizing; others are for the sake of holding a line for the already evangelized, for those who already are in the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilac_angel Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' post='1777304' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:12 PM']because your interpretation is anachronistic and not in line with what St. Paul meant (nor clearly how he lived, or he wouldn't have ended up in jail so often). I'm not saying you have to go around saying to any Jew you meet "hello, you are my enemy!"... but that's not what +Williamson did. He was asked about his position on Rabbinic Judaism, and he defined his position the way St. Paul defined the position of Christianity towards the Jews: they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, enemies (in their religion which denies Christ) for the sake of the gospel.[/quote] So what did that passage mean? The majority of the words speak for themselves. I actually only glossed over the article (I was making dinner), paying special attention to what you bolded, so I probably missed the part that he was only addressing Rabbinic Judaism. However, I've personally noticed a tie between modern anti-Semites today who often mention Rabbinic Jews being enemies of the Gospel yet quote from white supremacist websites and also hate today's Jews. Maybe that's why it made me cautious. Is it a big stretch to think that since he denies millions of deaths of the Jews that he's anti-Semitic, or at least was influenced by someone close to him who was? Edited February 10, 2009 by lilac_angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 yes, it is a big stretch; if you know +Williamson, you know he's simply got a tendency to believe in conspiracies... he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, is that an indication of some other hidden prejudice? do people who believe the moon landing was faked have a hidden prejudice? sometimes people have a tendency not to trust official stories and when bits of evidence come their way that seem to contradict the official story, they cling onto it because things make more sense sometimes when there's a secret truth that's been covered up. holocaust denial is often a way to come to terms with how the state of Israel was founded the way 9/11 conspiracies are often a way to come to termes with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and increased federal power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I've explained before, the passage means to become all things to all people, to meet them where they're at to help them to convert. if you interpret it to mean we are to hold back on what we truly believe about things, or that we are to mince our words or ignore passages of scripture such as the (religious) Jews being the enemies of the gospel, then I think you have mis-interpretted it. it's not about being nice, it's about meeting people where they're at. like I said, you don't go around saying "hello Mr. Jew, you are an enemy of the gospel!"; but quoting St. Paul about how the Jews are beloved by God but enemies of the gospel when asked about your position about Jews and Judaism is simply being a straight shooter about CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, about SCRIPTURAL TEACHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) The time of the incarnation and of the inspiration of the New Testament is a paradigmatic era of history for the world, because God chose to become incarnate in the fullness of time, and He inspired the Apostles and Evangelists in a manner that is binding forever upon Christians. As far as other religions are concerned, a Christian cannot embrace theological indiffierentism (i.e., and remain a Christian), and so there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact (i.e., theological truth) that Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc., and even atheism for that matter, are contrary to the Gospel; and concomitantly that a man who actively embraces one or more of those false religious systems, and who simultaneously persecutes the Church is an enemy of the Gospel. The prayers of the Byzantine liturgy, for example, speak in this way all the time; and as the saying goes, "the Law of prayer, is the Law of belief" (Lex orandi, Lex credendi). In the final analysis, theological indifferentism, which is a heresy long ago condemned by the Church, must be avoided by a Christian, i.e., if he desires to be saved. Edited February 10, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='lilac_angel' post='1777283' date='Feb 9 2009, 07:08 PM']Did Paul ask the Christians specifically to call the Jews their enemies [u]to their faces[/u]? That's on you to prove.[/quote] Al has been talking about a religious system, while you have changed the subject to "Jews" as human beings. Should a Christian say to a Rabbinic Jew that he is going to hell? No, because no one but God alone judges the heart. But does that mean that a Christian should refrain from telling a Jew (or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc.) that Christ is the sole savior of the world, and that no "religious system" be it Rabbinic Judaism or Islam, etc., is salvific? No, because a Christian must testify to the truth revealed by Christ before all men, and to fail to do anything else is a lie, and a denial of the Christian faith, and as Christ said, ". . . whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." Theological indifferentism is a heresy, and it undermines the Church's fulfillment of the Great Commission. Edited February 10, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Romans 11:28 - "According to the gospel, indeed, [i]they are[/i] enemies for your sake: but according to election, they are most dear for the sake of the father ______________ Fr. Haydock: Ver. 28 [i]According to the gospel, indeed[/i], they are [i]enemies for your sake[/i], That is, enemies both to you, because they see the gospel preached and received by you, and enemies to God, because he has rejected them at present for their wilful blindness: yet [i]according to election[/i], God having once made them his elect, and because of their forefathers, the patriarchs, [i]they are most dear for the sake of the fathers: for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,[/i] in as much as God is unchangeable, and his promises, made absolutely, cannot fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilac_angel Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1777441' date='Feb 9 2009, 11:44 PM']Al has been talking about a religious system, while you have changed the subject to "Jews" as human beings.[/quote] We talked about that misunderstanding, thanks. [quote]Should a Christian say to a Rabbinic Jew that he is going to hell? No, because no one but God alone judges the heart. But does that mean that a Christian should refrain from telling a Jew (or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc.) that Christ is the sole savior of the world, and that no "religious system" be it Rabbinic Judaism or Islam, etc., is salvific? No, because a Christian must testify to the truth revealed by Christ before all men, and to fail to do anything else is a lie, and a denial of the Christian faith, and as Christ said, ". . . whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." Theological indifferentism is a heresy, and it undermines the Church's fulfillment of the Great Commission.[/quote] Never disputed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilac_angel Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' post='1777335' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:32 PM']I've explained before, the passage means to become all things to all people, to meet them where they're at to help them to convert. if you interpret it to mean we are to hold back on what we truly believe about things, or that we are to mince our words or ignore passages of scripture such as the (religious) Jews being the enemies of the gospel,[/quote] Oh, that's refreshing, because I didn't interpret it that way. [quote]quoting St. Paul about how the Jews are beloved by God but enemies of the gospel when asked about your position about Jews and Judaism is simply being a straight shooter about CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, about SCRIPTURAL TEACHING.[/quote] Never disputed that (intentionally, anyway). That bit of the dispute (which turned into a mountain) was due to a misunderstood or possible misinterpretation of an article while I was making dinner, as I mentioned earlier. Edited February 10, 2009 by lilac_angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 [quote name='jmjtina' post='1777247' date='Feb 9 2009, 09:41 PM']Sad? It's almost weird coming from such an educated man. I could take liberal bishops in stride but this one is about history; it just boggles my mind. Denying history within the last 60 years? That just seems odd to me. Is this to be an article of the Catholic faith due to the Bishop or the fact that this is a widely accepted thought: the denial of the Holocaust? prayers for him.[/quote] Seriously? You would rather take liberal bishops dissenting from the Church or not doing all that their vocation demands of them then one that disagrees on how many Jews were victims during the Holocaust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 [quote name='lilac_angel' post='1777495' date='Feb 10 2009, 12:11 AM']Oh, that's refreshing, because I didn't interpret it that way.[/quote] the thing that you interpretted into it was pretty much don't call anyone your enemy, was pretty much be nice; not to say that you didn't see that as an interpretation; I was simply challenging your use of that verse to indicate that we shouldn't refer to our enemies as our enemies. maybe I misinterpretted, but you quoted that and pretty much said "do you see anything in that that says to call them enemies?"; it would be contrary to the whole experience of the Church if that particular passage condemned provocative evangelization. Christ himself had vicious words for the Pharisees... much worse than merely the word "enemy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now