Is Messianic Judaism More Biblical Than Catholicism

[yonah_mishael]

I've noticed that the Isaiah 53 discussion is going on longer than expected. I think you eventually get to a point where you've said everything you need to, even if you want to keep going. I think a limit is a good idea, but if we find that we actually have more to say - we can extend it.

 

[Athanasias]

I've noticed that the Isaiah 53 discussion is going on longer than expected. I think you eventually get to a point where you've said everything you need to, even if you want to keep going. I think a limit is a good idea, but if we find that we actually have more to say - we can extend it.

Ok we can put limits at it and yet keep it to where it can be elongated if needed. I would suggest for each doctrine we tackle we should each get at least 2-3 rounds per person. What are your thoughts on this. For me this is exciting but will be alot of work because there is so many doctrines that Catholicism holds to that Messianics do not that I believe stem from Judaism and the old covenant in scripture. So I think this will make a really long but fun discussion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I've noticed that the Isaiah 53 discussion is going on longer than expected. I think you eventually get to a point where you've said everything you need to, even if you want to keep going. I think a limit is a good idea, but if we find that we actually have more to say - we can extend it.

Fair enough Yonah. Sometimes a discussion can lead into another different but related topic. When his happens, a new debate could be in order.

What would you suggest would be reasonable; maybe 10 like the Isiah one?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

AbbaLove made a few suggestions:

It will be insightful to hear their own unique perspective. It might be helpful if each opponent briefly defines their own understanding of “Messianic Judaism” as well as “More Biblical” in their intro statement.

Maybe, it's OK if they agree to disagree on their own view/slant of “Messianic Judaism” and “More Biblical” as long as truly expressing their own religious perspective of these two phrases. Thus wit and wisdom becomes more of a challenge as this debate progresses.

Is the first opponent ready to offer up an introduction in hopes of encouraging an opposing opponent to come forward?

Are these two religious traditions agreeable with both opponents?
1. Honoring the Sabbath (Messianic Judaism)
2. Honoring Mary the Mother of Jesus (Catholicism)

My 2 cents is now spent ... leaving it up to Mark and the congenial foes to put right the details.

We have two doctrines so far; if both of you would like, we could take a bit of time and come up with a list and in the body of the debate, we could allocate three rounds each to each doctrine. We could start with an opening post and then a series of three round mini-debates, then a summation post from each. In the summation post additional points could be listed; possibly for additional discussions; or discussion in the PG thread (s) post debate.

 

[Athanasias]

Ok here is my suggestion. There is just so much good solid meat here to digest. I would give this list of doctrines because I believe they fulfill the Jewish revelation and scripture and the Messianics do not hold to these that I am aware of 1). Marian Dogma's all of them such as the Immaculate Conception(Mary's sinlessness) and Bodily Assumption and Perpetual Virginity, 2). Marian titles and roles in salvation history such as Queen Mother and her intercession for the Church 3) Prayers to dead saints and honoring them or venerating them 4) Purgatory 5) Indulgences 6), The Mass itself, its nature, and the Eucharistic real presence 7). Priesthood, 8). The Papacy 9) candles, Altars, Incense, Vestments, images, tabernacles etc 10). confession to a priest, 11). Sacramental Baptism, 12) Infant Baptism 13) Sacred Tradition as opposed to sola scriptura, 14) the New Testament itself etc just to name some of the big ones.


Again this to me would be a dialog and not a debate strictly. We can both present why he hold to what we do and how we understand our respective positions fulfilling more OT and Jewish customs then the other. And we can dialog on our differences but I will not do a hard debate on these with Yonah as I have with other opponents in the past on some of these issues because I find more growth comes from prayerful discussion when it comes to our differences. That being said I think in my opinion I have a embarrassment of riches of evidences when it comes to this discussion compared to what I understand about Messianic Christianity.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, we need to start somewhere; how about this?

1. Title and topic: Roman Catholicism is more Biblical than Messianic Judaism; a Respectful Discussion.
2. Athanasias will be presenting the affirmative; yonah_mishael will be taking the position that Messianic Judaism is more Biblical.
3. While there is much ground to cover, the number of posts will be 12 posts each; alternating with Athanasias opening the discussion (24 posts total).
4. The format of this discussion will be one opening post each; 10 alternating discussion posts, and one each summation post.
5. The time limit between posts will be one week from the time that a post is approved.
6. The size of the post will be limited by Christian Forums Software to the maximum size that the programming allows for a single post (I think it's around 1500 words)
7. Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
8. The start date:_________________.

I will be opening a Peanut gallery thread in the MJ forum; I will be opening one in GT which is Christian Only. I wish I had an un moderated forum, suitable to this topic and open to all members for free discussion. I'm going to look into this.



We discussed a lot of stuff; I'm all for letting the two opening posts set the tone and direction; however feel free to add and modify as you guys see fit; being mindful that both must agree before I open a debate thread.

 

[Athanasias]

Well, we need to start somewhere; how about this?

1. Title and topic: Roman Catholicism is more Biblical than Messianic Judaism; a Respectful Discussion.
2. Athanasias will be presenting the affirmative; yonah_mishael will be taking the position that Messianic Judaism is more Biblical.
3. While there is much ground to cover, the number of posts will be 12 posts each; alternating with Athanasias opening the discussion (24 posts total).
4. The format of this discussion will be one opening post each; 10 alternating discussion posts, and one each summation post.
5. The time limit between posts will be one week from the time that a post is approved.
6. The size of the post will be limited by Christian Forums Software to the maximum size that the programming allows for a single post (I think it's around 1500 words)
7. Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
8. The start date:_________________.

I will be opening a Peanut gallery thread in the MJ forum; I will be opening one in GT which is Christian Only. I wish I had an un moderated forum, suitable to this topic and open to all members for free discussion. I'm going to look into this.



We discussed a lot of stuff; I'm all for letting the two opening posts set the tone and direction; however feel free to add and modify as you guys see fit; being mindful that both must agree before I open a debate thread.

This sounds awesome to me! Thanks my friend!

 

[yonah_mishael]

I need to be clear that I don’t know that much about Catholicism. I’ve visited a Catholic church twice in my life, and I spent about a month in Costa Rica when I was 26 years old and heard prayers over the radio daily (Santa Maria, Madre de Dios, Ruega por nosotros pecadores!). I’ve got no experience in Catholicism. The only thing that I know is the Bible, and it’s quite clear that most of the things that Athanasius has listed in the above list have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible and make zero appearance in its verses. All I would be able to say about them is: “How can Catholicism be more biblical than Messianic Judaism when it takes all of its symbols and institutions from some place other than the Bible?” I mean, isn’t it clear that these things are non-biblical? What else could I say about them? I don’t know where they get the idea of purgatory or the idea that Mary was born without sin. That just seems strange to me – like some foreign thought.

All I can argue is what is in the Bible. Does the Bible have these things? No, of course not. What does the Bible teach? I could argue that the Bible supports Messianic Judaism and that Yeshua was the natural fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs. I could argue that there is a continuance between the practice of Judaism and the people who first believed that Yeshua was the Messiah. I cannot touch these unbiblical thoughts or even share any common ground with them so that we could exchange anything meaningful.

The more I think about it, the less I think I would be able to engage in such a debate. I simply don’t have the experience of Catholicism that would be necessary. These teachings must come from somewhere, but they certainly don’t come from the Bible – and that just leaves me stumped. Do we really think this is a good series of discussion topics? Why not discuss the basis of orthopraxy and theology? Why not discuss the value of the Reformation principles sola Scriptura and such? Why not discuss the value of the Bible as the revelation of God and whether or not foundational beliefs can appear in sources other than the Bible?

It seems meaningless to me to debate purgatory or the immaculate conception of Mary. The focus should be about the continuance of the ministry of Yeshua and the obvious question of what he would have expected of his followers – to begin a new religion or to continue to practice Judaism, a Judaism that opens its doors to the whole world.

I don’t know where I can stand in this debate as it is being framed for me.

[By the way, the system limitation is 15,000 characters. It doesn't measure words but characters, counting spaces. You can do a character count on Word.]

 

[yonah_mishael]

I wonder if we shouldn't make the debate between Messianic Judaism and Christianity generally, and have it carried about on the basis of the Bible as the authority on which a decision could be made and argument waged. Using Catholic tradition to establish Catholic doctrine is like using the Talmud to establish Judaism. If either is to be true, it must be determined on the basis of the Bible, and I just cannot see that happening here.

 

[Athanasias]

OH well I understand how you feel Yonah. No hard feelings I promise. Perhaps another time. Catholic do believe all those doctrines I listed to not only be based deeply in scripture but also in sacred tradition(which is talked about in scripture). I had the blessings of studying under a very solid Hebrew Catholic Scholar in Grad school(Dr. Lawrence Feingold) who gave lectures for the Hebrew Catholic Assoc on how he and other Jewish converts to the Catholic faith see Catholicism as directly fulfilling Judaism in all those doctrines and practices. So I guess they thought it would be interesting to see us dialog.

Truthfully in a dialog all one can say is I disagree and here is why but they do it politely. what would be neat is to get this info on the table for others to look at and see if anyone else sees the same connections that many Jewish converts to the Catholic faith have.

Its ok if you do not want to engage in such dialog. I respect that too. But for all those reading there are several scholarly and practical sources I want to recommend for self study to see these connections to Judaism and scripture and the Catholic Church.

The first is a very easy light book to read that goes over a basic connection between the Catholic Church as the doctrinal fullfillment of Judiams and scripture.

Its called "The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity" by Dr. Taylor Marshall.
The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity (Origins of Catholic Christianity Trilogy): Taylor Marshall: 9780578038346: Amazon.com: Books

the second is a 3 volume set of books by my professor a Jewish convert on how the Catholic Church alone is prophesied all the way back to Abraham and fulfills the Ot in Catholic Doctrines such as the priesthood and Papacy etc and its called

" The Mystery of Israel and the Church" by Dr. Lawrence Feingold

The Mystery of Israel and the Church, Vol. 1: Figure and Fulfillment: Lawrence Feingold: 9780939409037: Amazon.com: Books

Another source for anyone to Check is the Hebrew Catholic Assoc which is filled with info on this stuff

hebrewcatholic.net

Finally I would suggest another bible Scholar who specializes in Judaism and shows the connections and fulfillment's of Catholicism in sceriptiure and Jewish tradition is Dr Brante Pitre.

I would suggest 3 works by him.

One is on how Jewish the understanding of transubstantiation in the Eucharist is and is in a book called "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper"
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper: Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: 9780385531849: Amazon.com: Books

The next is a lecture by him on the Jewish roots of Purgatory which also list rabbis quoting the ot talking about this concept.
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Purgatory CD - Catholic Productions

Another good one is "Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Papacy"

Here is a small 8 minute sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j30c6nG8o2w

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy CD - Catholic Productions

I hope that helps anyone see the deeper reasons why many Jews have converted to Catholicism and see the Catholic Church as the fulfillment of scripture and Jewish religion.

Here is a good book of converts that explain that.

Amazon.com: Honey from the Rock: Sixteen Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ (9781586171155): Roy Schoeman: Books

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thanks for all of the resources. If I look through them and find that this is something with which I can contend (that is, with which we may have common ground enough for discussion), then I would be glad to proceed with you. Let me finish my debate on Isaiah 53, and then I will look through what you've presented here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, we need to start somewhere; how about this?

1. Title and topic: Roman Catholicism is more Biblical than Messianic Judaism; a Respectful Discussion.
2. Athanasias will be presenting the affirmative; yonah_mishael will be taking the position that Messianic Judaism is more Biblical.
3. While there is much ground to cover, the number of posts will be 12 posts each; alternating with Athanasias opening the discussion (24 posts total).
4. The format of this discussion will be one opening post each; 10 alternating discussion posts, and one each summation post.
5. The time limit between posts will be one week from the time that a post is approved.
6. The size of the post will be limited by Christian Forums Software to the maximum size that the programming allows for a single post (I think it's around 1500 words)
7. Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule.
8. The start date:_________________.

I will be opening a Peanut gallery thread in the MJ forum; I will be opening one in GT which is Christian Only. I wish I had an un moderated forum, suitable to this topic and open to all members for free discussion. I'm going to look into this.



We discussed a lot of stuff; I'm all for letting the two opening posts set the tone and direction; however feel free to add and modify as you guys see fit; being mindful that both must agree before I open a debate thread.

I wonder if we shouldn't make the debate between Messianic Judaism and Christianity generally, and have it carried about on the basis of the Bible as the authority on which a decision could be made and argument waged. Using Catholic tradition to establish Catholic doctrine is like using the Talmud to establish Judaism. If either is to be true, it must be determined on the basis of the Bible, and I just cannot see that happening here.

Before we abandon this; how about Yonah starting first to set the tone and direction. We could start with a shorter debate. We can change the title to make the MJ position the affirmative, or we can let Yonah go first with the negative position to the existing title.

I want everyone to be comfortable here.

Thoughts?

 

[yonah_mishael]

I think it best to put this on hold until I understand just what types of justifications are used to support Catholic doctrine. As it is, it seems to me to be based on unjustifiable contortions of individual verses and leaps of reason that simply could never be made by someone who takes only the Bible as his rule of authority. Until I better understand why they think like they do, I would only put myself in a position to be broadsided by unexpected argumentation - and it's really difficult to have a back-and-forth that would lead to anything when your basic assumptions are so very different.

Give me time with this. There is much on which I need to ponder before I go forward with this.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I wonder if we shouldn't make the debate between Messianic Judaism and Christianity generally, and have it carried about on the basis of the Bible as the authority on which a decision could be made and argument waged. Using Catholic tradition to establish Catholic doctrine is like using the Talmud to establish Judaism. If either is to be true, it must be determined on the basis of the Bible, and I just cannot see that happening here.

I think it best to put this on hold until I understand just what types of justifications are used to support Catholic doctrine. As it is, it seems to me to be based on unjustifiable contortions of individual verses and leaps of reason that simply could never be made by someone who takes only the Bible as his rule of authority. Until I better understand why they think like they do, I would only put myself in a position to be broadsided by unexpected argumentation - and it's really difficult to have a back-and-forth that would lead to anything when your basic assumptions are so very different.

Give me time with this. There is much on which I need to ponder before I go forward with this.

Yonah, How about a similar discussion with a Sola Scriptura Lutheran. We do still retain many of the traditions of our Catholic brothers and sisters, but we look these in the light of Scripture. Doctrine is drawn from Scripture only. As you suggested, we could make it about M J Christianity vs. Western, main line Christianity. I would be willing to do this.

 

[Athanasias]

I think I can understand what you mean Yonah. We do have 2 very different authorities. Although Catholics do believe the bible to be a Authority and even have a primacy in a sense(as we and the early Christian martyrs truly do believe that many of those doctrines I quoted are retained in scripture in some form) we do not see it as only the bible and we believe that apostolic tradition also contains the word of God and we have a magisterium which we believe is infallible at times. Perhaps a better dialog would be

"What fulfills historic Judaism and sacred scripture more the Messianic Christian concept of Authority in scripture alone or the Catholic understanding of Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church."

That is just one suggestion. To get a good understanding of all of these biblical and traditional evidences for our doctrines definitely check out those Hebrew Catholic sources in whole that I listed they are priceless. Also read the early Church fathers centuries 1-7 and you will see how they read scripture and what they saw and how it developed in regards to Marian doctrines, the Eucharist the Papacy, priesthood, sacraments etc. Some great ones to read are Pope St. Clement of Rome who writes in the first century and reveals some interesting insights into early Christian thought on Jewish fulfillment in regards to the priesthood, and authority. Then there is Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by the apostle John himself and has a strong sacrificial and Eucharistic teaching on the real presence of Christ in communion and the importance of the Bishops. St. Irenaeus is another good one who wrote in the 180's who was an apostolic father and defender of the faith who had some interesting teaching on Church authority and The Roman Church and sacred tradition, St. Athanasius the great defender of our Christology against the arian heretics had some interesting things to say about Scripture and the authority of apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church and her councils also, St Cyprian of Carthage, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Augustine also, and St. Jerome etc.

Another good book you may want to read is by a solid protestant early Church historian name J.N.D. Kelly his book Early Christian Doctrines is priceless and a good non-Catholic source.

 

[mark kennedy]

Would such a formal debate proposal be considered off limits in this MJ forum?

The Roman Catholic Church isn't exactly famous for it's Bible study. Some great theological and doctrinal works but exposition and exegesis isn't really their strong suite. The Messianic Jews I have been acquainted with I found to be right at home doing in depth Biblical studies but that's a general impression.

Still, Rome worked tirelessly to preserve the manuscripts our English translations are based on. I'd like to take this one on just because of the subject matter.

 

[annier]

Before we abandon this; how about Yonah starting first to set the tone and direction. We could start with a shorter debate. We can change the title to make the MJ position the affirmative, or we can let Yonah go first with the negative position to the existing title.

I want everyone to be comfortable here.

Thoughts?

Would it be possible to be more specific in the use of the term biblical? Maybe, discussions of being "biblical" in specific ways? "Biblical" is a pretty broad term after all. Therefore would it be of benefit to begin dialogue in the areas where Messianic, Judaism, and Christianity share commonality, and a sense of familiarity? What I am talking about is to begin the discussion from the point of "LITURGY". Would it be possible, (but more importantly) or helpful, to begin with an examination of "being biblical" in terms of liturgy? I think that would be very interesting and helpful personally. As liturgy being a very important aspect in both Scripture and ministry for Judaism (of all kinds) and much of all historical Christianity (of many kinds). Maybe this commonality could help mold for us all what should (if anything) come next, as a logical outcome? What ya think?
Perhaps Yonah might find this unworkable (I would hope not), and I would certainly understand if so. But Messianics should have no Issue with this subject, I would not think..
Thanks...
Annier

 

[Athanasias]

Gonna recommend this book to Yonah and others. Its great for beginners.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMIMmBADzJs&list=PL77348F952B3460AD

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just wondering where we are with this proposal?

 

[AbbaLove]

That being said I think in my opinion I have an embarrassment of riches of evidences when it comes to this discussion compared to what I understand about Messianic Christianity.

The nomenclature Messianic Christianity is an affront if not an oxymoron to possibly all Messianic Jews as well as confusing terminology to mainline Evangelical Christianity.

What is Messianic Judaism? - Congregation Shema Yisrael​

Using Catholic tradition to establish Catholic doctrine is like using the Talmud to establish Judaism. If either is to be true, it must be determined on the basis of the Bible, and I just cannot see that happening here.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't exactly famous for it's Bible study. Some great theological and doctrinal works but exposition and exegesis isn't really their strong suite. The Messianic Jews I have been acquainted with I found to be right at home doing in depth Biblical studies but that's a general impression.

Still, Rome worked tirelessly to preserve the manuscripts our English translations are based on. I'd like to take this one on just because of the subject matter.

Give me time with this. There is much on which I need to ponder before I go forward with this.

The intent of this Proposal was to discuss/debate what is believed to be a most important and major difference in how Messianic Judaism interprets the Holy Scriptures compared to how Catholicism interprets the Holy Scriptures. Catholicism in their Article of Catechism (also Luther's) with respect to their Third Commandment Article is about honoring the Sabbath and their Fourth Article is about honoring your parents.

Without quickly getting sidetracked about the order (again church doctrine) is it not possible that this Debate Proposal first go forward by beginning this discussion/debate on the premise that Messianic Judaism is “more Biblical” than Catholicism as well as Protestantism (mainline Christianity) when it comes to the benefits to be derived from remembering to honor the Saturday Sabbath Commandment (Isaiah 58:13,14 - NIV).

Is it not possible to first begin this discussion/debate on why Catholics as well as Protestants (mainline Christianity) have apparently concluded it's no longer necessary to -- "Remember the Sabbath [7th] day, to keep it holy” concluding instead that a Sunday Christian Sabbath (the first day of the week) is “more Biblical” than a Saturday Messianic Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.