Thanks for the comments, everyone. The thread will now be closed.

If the Jews of today are not really Hebrews but "Khazars" then how can he blame them for killing Christ? Logically they didn't do it nor are they related to those who did.
I still remember the Jerusalem Post review of The Passion of Christ.
What struck the reviewer was that it was all taking place in Jerusalem, and there were Jews there. Contrary to what many Muslims say.

Rosemarie, I also think this persecution has to do with the "enemies" comment Paul made as well.

+J.M.J+
One thing I might add: the context of 1 Thess 2:15 shows that St. Paul is not talking about all Jews of all time, but specifically those Jews in Jerusalem who were persecuting the early Church. That's clear from vs 14: "You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus."
IOW, he was talking about the chief priests and Pharisees, who were involved in Our Lord's arrest and trial and who later persecuted His followers. Even the statement about the prophets is a dead giveaway; since Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees:
Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.... That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar (St Matt 23:32-35).
The Pharisees acted in the same spirit as their forefathers who murdered the Prophets, thus Jesus sentenced them to be punished. This is what St. Paul alludes to in 1 Thess 2:15; there are obvious parallels in St. Paul's words to St. Matthew 23.
So St. Paul was not saying that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ; he is talking about a specific group of Jews. I am reminded of how St. John keeps saying "The Jews said" in his Gospel; he clearly doesn't mean that all the Jews alive at that time were talking to Jesus all at once! He's talking about a certain group of Jews. Again, we see the problem with the phrase "The Jews;" it is often meant restrictively but interpreted too broadly.
Besides, the Jews in Jerusalem who were involved in Christ's Passion were killed off in the destruction of that city in 70 AD - along with their decendents. So even if the statement "His blood be on us and on our children," were some kind of curse, that would not apply to Jews alive today.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
I am familiar with 1 Thess 2:14-15, but does that contradict St John 10:17-18? I don't believe that the Bible can contradict itself, so we have to find an alternate explanation.
Like I said, from an earthly perspective, some Jews were at least partly responsible for the death of Christ. That is what 1 Thess 2:14 expresses. Yet that does not negate Our Lord's explicit statement that no one takes His life because He lays it down.
When Pilate told Jesus, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?" He replied, "Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above." Pilate did have the earthly authority to condemn anyone to death, but even he could not have done so with Christ were it not God's will that He die.
The same goes for those of Jesus' own people who conspired against Him; they would not have been able to arrest Him and turn Him over to the Romans lest Our Lord willed it and let them do it. So ultimately the Jews did not take His life.
I know a Protestant would not care much about the new Catechism, but here's what it has to say for those who have ears to hear:
597 The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost.* Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and on our children!", a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.
* The footnote right here in the original text cites 1 Thess. 2:14-15.
In Jesu et Maria,

Jeb,
Right, Abraham is Old Israel and is now part of the New Israel which overlapped with the Old, joined to us, the Body of Christ, by his faith. Same with Paul and any other Jews that maintained faith and converted. Are today's remnants of Old Israel to which Paul refers joined to us in the Body of Christ? No, not yet, and I think we agree very much. We just can't ignore that Old Israel is in fact "elect", not that this is any guarantee for every individual's salvation, Jewish or Christian. God can graft either of us in and out of the tree; we need faith, whether we're elect or not. Paul explicitly identifies them as elect, though, and how it has to do with God's promise (which He never revokes), and tells us of a mystery of God's plan for them. I think we believe the same thing of the insufficiency of being Jewish these days and recognize the need for faith, and that Jews with the faith Abraham had, convert when given the opportunity. God is no doubt working out His plan as we speak, and it will take some time.

Rosemarie,
You forgot to mention I THess, Chapt 2:
14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews,
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men
16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.
God looks at people, not just individuals. The Jews as a whole rejected Jesus and God punished the Jewish nation for it in 70AD.

+J.M.J+
Let me clarify something I wrote above: I don't want to give the impression that I am saying that there are two contradictory realities: earthly and spiritual.
If we look at Jesus' death from a purely earthly perspective, that will involve not taking into account His Divinity and His ultimate ability to escape had He wanted to do so. In that case, it would at least seem accurate to say, "Some Jews and some Romans killed Christ."
Of course, the spiritual perspective is the truer one; the earthly perspective is distorted because it can't perceive the Divine Will behind the Passion of Our Lord. So the real Truth is that Christ willingly laid down His life out of love for mankind; the Jews did not take His life, nor did the Romans.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
>>>If the Jews of today are not really Hebrews but "Khazars" then how can he blame them for killing Christ? Logically they didn't do it nor are they related to those who did.
Touchè. Of course, anti-Semitism abounds with such "logic":
"The Jews are international bankers who control capitalism in the world - and they're also a bunch of commies who want to demolish capitalism!"
"The Holocaust is a fabrication; and besides, the Jews deserved it!"
Etc. etc. ad nauseam.
In Jesu et Maria,

Karen,
No one believes that the truth revealed to the Jews in OT times was false. Of course it was true. However, my contention is that non-Christian Jews today are not preaching the OT faith, but the rejection of it. Sure it's better that Jews are advocating monotheism rather than polytheism, but as I pointed out that's about the only thing positive about. Your local orthodox rabbi is preaching a religion of damnation just as much as John Spong is. I know that's blunt, but it's the truth.
Jesus told the Jews that Abraham "saw my day and was glad." Not saw it when he was in heaven, but looked forward to it when he was alive. When Abraham was alive, he was a member of the same religious organization I am (the true Israel).

+J.M.J+
As for "The Jews killed Christ" charge: Granted, the Holy Gospels clearly show that some of His own people (John 1:11) were involved in bringing about His saving death on the Cross (Judas, Caiaphas, the chief priests, etc.) Of course, not all Jews alive at the time were involved in this, so not all Jews alive at that time can be accused of killing Christ (let alone all Jews of all time!)
This is precisely the problem with the statement, "The Jews killed Christ" - what Jews? All Jews of all time? All Jews alive today? All Jews alive at the time? Or just the few who actually participated in the proceedings (and they were relatively few compared to the whole Jewish population). It's an ambiguous statement that can be - and has been - interpreted many ways, and has led to much violence and bloodshed over the centuries.
Of course, the Holy Gospels also clearly show that there were some Romans involved in Christ's death. So, from a purely earthly, historical POV, it would be accurate to say: "Some Jews and some Romans killed Christ." Yet, viewed from a spiritual perspective (which, as Christians, we should certainly take), things change. For St. John records Jesus saying the following:
"Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself. And I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (St John 10:17-18 DRV, emphasis mine)
So, ultimately speaking, no one killed Christ; He laid down His life.
Sure, the temple guards arrested Him, but only after He knocked them down with a word (St John 18:4-6). He could have made a getaway had He wanted to, as He did when the crowd tried to stone Him years before (St Luke 4:29-30). Yet this time He stayed, because He was laying down His life.
When St. Peter tried to fight the guards (hey, a Jew tried to prevent Jesus' death, too!), Our Lord told Him that He could ask God the Father for twelve legions of angels to save Him (St. Matthew 26:53). But He didn't, because He was laying down His life.
As He hung on the Cross, both Jews and Gentiles mocked Him, telling Him to come down from the Cross. Y'know, He could have done it!!! but He didn't, because He was laying down His life.
Did Jews like Caiaphas know what they were doing when they turned Him over to be crucified? Pope St. Peter himself said that they did not, when he spoke to the Jews at the Temple:
"And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers." (Acts 3:17 DRV)
And St. Paul concurs:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Corinthians 2:7-8 DRV)
If anyone doubts that this last passage applies to the Jews, then let the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) remove all doubt:
"We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him."
(The current Catechism says much the same thing in paragraph #597)
Caiaphas surely did not say to himself, "I know this Jesus is the Messiah, but I want to kill Him anyway." The Holy Gospels clearly show that those of His own people who conspired against Him thought Jesus was a demonically-possessed liar and blasphemer. The Torah says that such people should be put to death, so they sought to do so.
They certainly did not know that He was the long-awaited Messiah, otherwise they would not have had Him killed. So I do believe that Our Lord's statement "They know not what they do..." applies to the Jews as well as the Romans.
In Jesu et Maria,

I have no clue what happened between my post last night and this morning; one of us "she" people was supposed to have said something I didn't even bring up and can't find in any posts, and then it deteriorated, so I'll nevermind.
Anyway, hi again Jeb. To answer your questions:
Karen,
Let me ask you this:
1. If Abraham were alive today, would he be a Christian or would he join an orthodox Jewish synagogue?
2. If you gave money to an orthodox Jewish synagogue to spread its message, would you be advancing the Kingdom of God?
Incidentally, did either John Paul II or Benedict XVI preach Jesus in the synagogue? Did they even mention Jesus? I don't know.
Anyone in Heaven is certainly privy to the fullness of the Church now. Abraham would not be joining a synagogue, but the Church.
I wouldn't give money to a Jewish evangelizing organization. That's a good question but it requires a lot of splitting hairs, because you don't want to say that the truth revealed to the Jews is false, since it isn't. If they were evangelizing what they do know was revealed to them , it would not be lies, but we both know that they would be teaching these things with the assumption that the Kingdom of God was not already at hand and when there is so much more to know.
I think what you're getting at is whether the Church is now "Israel". Maybe you've read that the Church is the New Israel, while at the same time, those of Jewish heritage are retaining that distinction described by Paul--he's not ignoring it--so "Israel" is still around. He refers to them in Romans 9 as the children of the promise, in asserting God's own free choices regarding who is elect. Despite their common lineage in flesh, He "loved" Jacob but "hated" (loved less, in Hebrew) Esau. Who He deemed "elect" in their case, was decided before either were born or could do no right or wrong. (In the same way, whether the Jews do right or wrong, God's promise is still in effect and "Jacob" remains "elect".)
So we have what we must call an Old Israel and a New Israel. Paul even still calls the Jews "Israel" himself, or "Jacob", which is another name for Israel. He doesn't say "ex-Israel", he says "Israel". Gentile Christians are also elect, by faith in the promise and not by flesh, in their case. Even being "elect" doesn't guarantee Heaven, though, whether we're talking about Jews or Christians or Jewish converts to Christianity. You have to have faith, otherwise we "unnatural" branches on the good olive tree can also be grafted right back out like the faithless natural branches were, whether we're elect or not. Nobody will make the claim that it's all the same whether I go to a church or a synagogue, though, or that Jews should not convert, because that is obviously in God's plan for them.
Both are "elect", the "Old" Israel merely being elect on two counts if they convert. Rather than this meaning that Old Israel ceased to exist and is replaced by the Church which usurps the name of "Israel", the two actually overlap. Of course, the aim of God's plan is that those of Old Israel integrate into New Israel and convert, like Paul did. Paul is however clear that on account of their fathers, "Old" Israel as a people maintains a distinction and a special mysterious providence, being dear to God due to the sake of their fathers. Do we know everything about the mystery? Not yet; as of Paul's writing, it is a mystery.
As to Benedict XVI, I don't know exactly what occurred in that synagogue, either. God's plan for the Jews is respected by us Christians, though--just bringing this respect to light and following it where it takes you is demonstrating Christian respect for this plan. If Benedict gracefully pulled out some Christian verses for the Jews to ponder, more power to him. If not, however, his mere presence preached volumes about our Christian respect for Jews and God's loving plan for them, and about the conciliatory, Christian attitude worthy of emulation. This effort cannot be mistaken for a step towards pluralism or indifferentism in any sense--if there's anything we're hated for, the fact that we're not pluralists or indifferentists is right up there near the top of the list.

Jimmy, your patience is incredible!

Crime: Violation of Probation. Sentence: Banishment to the Phantom Zone!

Okay, Catholic Defender, that's it.
STRIKE THREE, YOU'RE OUT.
Though warned about you after you began posting here, I've been patient and given you every chance, but you have abused the privilege of posting with continual provocations.
You are no longer welcome on this blog. Any further postings by you will constitute harrassment.
So get lost.
Scram.

This Apostate who dares to call himself a "Catholic" has the morals & theology of a Nazi. I'd get rid of him or he will poison the comments boxes with his filth.

>Of course, the error being spread today " by Judaizers" is that a huge number of " so called Jews"
need to convert in order to usher in the second coming of Jesus.
I reply: Actually ALL the Church Fathers taught that the Second Coming would be proceded by the mass conversion of the Jews. It was the Calvinists who invented the idea Romans 10 & 11 didn't predict the mass conversion of the Jews before the end. Certain lunatic falsely called "Traditionalist" Catholics have tried to inject this profain novelty into Church Teaching & obviously certain guillible trolls believe them uncritically.
>This is also invented theology, never taught by the Catholic church.
I reply: And if I listed all the Church Fathers who taught it you would dismiss them or ignore what I post. Get a new MO heretic & stop pretending you are something other than a complete idiot.

Oh gosh.....please stop speaking German...
Or I will *try* to post in Latin!!!
Semper tuum.(I think)

CD, sind Sie kein zutreffender Katholischer.

Schnell, rufen Sie die Gedanke-Polizei, um einen Katholiken zum Schweigen zu bringen

Schnell, rufen Sie die Gedanke-Polizei, um einen Katholiken zum Schweigen zu bringen

Jimmy forbade it? I enjoy reading it, personally.

Actually, it was I who crucified Christ.

My Response:
Dear XXXXXXX,
I have no clue where you learned your theology, but is as far removed from Orthodox Catholic Theology as can be.
True Israel is the CATHOLIC Church ! True Jews are Catholics !
The Jews did not reject Jesus ? Not true.
They did more than that, they killed him and the blood curse, (Matt 25:27 " and the whole people answering said: His blood be upon us and our children " ) they brought upon themselves, a eternal curse which "the Jews " can only escape from by entering into the Ark of Salvation, the Catholic Church, and leaving behind their Mosaic and Mishnah rituals as well as all tendencies of Judaizing.
Unfortunately, many modern day converts, have resorted the practice of Judaizing despite the explicit warnings of St. Peter, who compares the practice to a dog returning to its vomit.
The Liberal Catholics of our country are now making another concession to Interfaith charity and Brotherhood benevolence. They are saying, “It was not the Jews who crucified Christ; it was the Romans.”
I should like to ask these Liberal Catholics a few pointed and direct questions on the subject of Our Lord’s death.
Was it the Romans who came out to seize Him in the Garden of Olives with swords and clubs on the night of His Passion, and who brought Him bound to the High Priest, and then to Pontius Pilate, demanding that He should be killed?
Was it a Roman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, and was it to Romans He was sold for thirty pieces of silver?
Was the High Priest a Roman, who rent his garments and accused Our Lord of blasphemy when He declared Himself to be the Eternal Son of God?
Was it a Roman crowd which stood before the tribunal of Pontius Pilate and shouted: “If this man were not a malefactor we would not have handed Him over to you ... His blood be upon us and upon our children!”
Was it the Romans who disowned Jesus as the King of the Jews, and did not want the inscription placed over His head on the Cross when He hung, crowned with thorns, and with nails in His hands and His feet?
Was it God’s judgment in Heaven that the Romans had killed Christ, and was that why the Power of the Almighty some thirty years later razed the Temple of Jerusalem to the ground, and left not a stone upon a stone, and has never allowed it to be rebuilt from that day to this?
In the prayers of the Mass for Good Friday of Holy Week, the priest refers to the “perfidious Jews” as the ones who betrayed and crucified Christ. Should he be saying the “perfidious Romans”? And has it been wrong for the Church to put it the first way for as long as her history?
When Our Lord hung upon the Cross His first reported words were, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Do the Liberal Catholics really think Our Lord was referring to the Jews when He said, “They know not what they do”? Was it the Jewish Chief Priests, the Scribes and the Ancients, with whom He sat daily teaching in the Temple and who, when He was crucified, wagged their heads and mocked Him and shouted: “He saved others; himself He cannot save” – was it these who knew not what they did, and whom Our Lord asked the Father to forgive?
Saint Luke tells us clearly that Jesus said this of the Roman soldiers who “dividing his garments, cast lots.” And Saint Matthew tells us that these same Romans, after Jesus expired on the Cross, cried out in one voice with their Centurion, “Indeed, this was the Son of God!”
As to the idea the old covenant is still is force, this is also false. But lets look to the scriptures for proof.
2 Corr Ch 3 .verse 6-14
Hebrews : chapter 7 vs. 18
Hebrews Chapter 8 vs. 7-13
Hebrews chapter 10 vs. 9.
Clearly the Old Covenant has been superceded by the New.
The unfaithful Jews of the time of Christ lost their Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifice. Today they remain without a Temple ,without a Sacrifice and without a Patriarch, or Priesthood. 1 Thes chapter 2 vs. 15 tells us " the Jews" please not God and are adversaries to ALL men. Is the Bible wrong ?
Salvation, in the time of Jesus came from the Jews. But today, Salvation comes from the Catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ.
While some Judaizers today claim that the Root is Israel, not Christ, this is just not true. Christ is the root, and the Jews who were faithful to the old law in the time of Jesus were the branches. Those who reject Jesus were in turn rejected by Jesus. The new branches grafted onto the ROOT, are the Catholics who accept Jesus. Those who "call themselves Jews" today are not Jews. Jesus makes this clear, and tells us "the Jews" killed the prophets, refused to obey Moses and please not God. If they were real Jews ( which the Catholics are today ) they would obey, but " the Jews " will not obey. Jesus tells them ( and their fellow followers) they are not of God but rather their father, who is the father of lies, the devil.
The number of Jews who accepted Jesus was very small in His time, and only a few of " the Jews": will ever convert.
Of course, the error being spread today " by Judaizers" is that a huge number of " so called Jews" need to convert in order to usher in the second coming of Jesus. This is also invented theology, never taught by the Catholic church.
Protestants of bad will and Catholic Judaizers say that the modern state of Israel, represents a beginning of the biblical fulfillment of Zechariah, 12. However, Matthew, Mark and Luke say Zechariah was fulfilled at the first coming of Christ.
The modern day state of Israel was founded by Zionists of Khazar ancestry. In other words Russians, who falsely lay claim to being entitled to a land they never lived in. These people " who call themselves Jews" seek to restore the present boundaries of the state of Israel far beyond modern day Israel, via the barrel of guns, helicopter gunships, tanks and are killing and expelling the settlers from Biblical times to achieve it. They preach they are the chosen people, while they have terrorized the Palestinian people since 1946, and have ignored every UN resolution ever passed. Their occupation and terrorism towards the Palestinians far exceeds the worst excesses of the Nazi regime.
Are those the people you call Chosen? Who is writing the script if I may ask ?
Catholic Defender.

This person calls herself Catholic?
" First off, the Jews didn't reject Jesus.
The Jews are still God's chosen people.
Now, clearly, it's better to participate in the new covenant than the old (and less of a pain to remember the rules).
But that doesn't mean the chosen people stopped being chosen. Or haven't you noticed the fact that Israel continues to exist, and the Jews do too? "

Scratch that "and" between "comments" and "you'll". Now you've also learned that my grammar ain't always so hot.

"I don't know." You also don't know the answer to your first question(Neither does anyone else). And, as regards your second question, you also don't know that Jews don't prozelytise. But, if you keep reading Jimmy's blog and some of the comments and you'll learn a lot. Why, just today, you've learned that private interpretation of Scripture is prohibited by the Bible, and that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth!

Karen,
Let me ask you this:
1. If Abraham were alive today, would he be a Christian or would he join an orthodox Jewish synagogue?
2. If you gave money to an orthodox Jewish synagogue to spread its message, would you be advancing the Kingdom of God?
Incidentally, did either John Paul II or Benedict XVI preach Jesus in the synagogue? Did they even mention Jesus? I don't know.

If you say your not Neo-Conspy/Catholic Defender, Jeb then I will believe you (for now).
>I am a Reformed Baptist.
I reply: Which means by definition you have heterodox views on atonement, election, predestination & ecclesiology.
>I deny that the Jews are God's chosen people.
I reply: Yet Paul says "Has God rejected His people?". Clearly the text refers to unbelieving Jews as His People.
>I affirm that they have a continuing purpose in God's plan.
I reply: Well that is nice.
>Note that in Romans 9:6 Paul distinguishes between a literal and spiritual Israel and in Galatians 6:16 he calls the church "Israel."
I reply: Yes your a Protestant heretic thus by definition you believe in an invisible "spiritual" church not a real visible physical Church which is also spiritual. It's not either/or it in fact is both/and.
The Jews are the Chosen People. In time God will call them to accept their Messiah. Your error filled contra-Catholic Refromed Baptist theology will not of course be helpful to that end.

Hi Jeb,
So in that sense, yes God has a plan for the Jews and hasn't forsaken them. On the other hand, there is nothing in Romans 9-11 that says God approves of Judaism as practiced by non-Christian Jews or that Jews are doing anything positive spiritually. Paul calls them his "kinsmen according to the flesh." He doesn't call them his spiritual brothers.
The quote in Romans does not suport your position. When Paul says to Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" he is not approving of how non-Christian Jews practice their religion. He is calling them to their roots, which was the implicit faith they had in Jesus as the coming Messiah.
I don't see that I am taking the position at all, that this Judaism without faith is something of which God (or Paul) approves. I don't see that we disagree there; I'm not sure how you do unless I wasn't writing carefully enough. Regarding the Gospel, this is what currently makes them "enemies" for our sake. Let's think about the "enemies" comment. Is it specifically because of their heritage? No, because in the first verse Paul is still acknowledging his Jewish heritage. And there were righteous, faithful Jews before Christ as well. Yet other Jews did convert to Christianity because they did have faith, and we continue to see Jews converting today. So far we have those irrefutable facts. For yet other Jews among us, it might not be for lack of faith, especially if nobody is preaching to them (perhaps by visiting them where they congregate, in synagogues ;-).) So these things limit how we can interpret the "enemies" comment, then--it can't be simply due to their heritage and it cannot be all-inclusive, and the term "enemy" must not necessarily demand that we are not to have anything to do with the Jews.
Somehow you also have to resolve the "enemies" assertation with the "but" that comes immediately after: "but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers". So they are elect, with a special providence and a special plan, some of which we Christians are a part--the faith of Christians is meant to be emulated. We do know that they should have faith. Lastly, also note in verse 25 that Paul says this is *mystery*. Somehow, despite being "enemies", they still remain dear to God--they retain a special mysterious providence and it's being specifically pointed out that this IS for the sake of their fathers. Paul's making us aware of this mystery so that we will not become wise in our own estimation.
Does that pretty much cover it?

Jim Scott:
You heard a rumor that Jeb is NeoConSpy?. that is interesting. I am here to tell you that is a false rumor.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
Eugenio Zolli.

Scott,
Who or what is a "Neo-conspy"?
I am a Reformed Baptist.
I deny that the Jews are God's chosen people. I affirm that they have a continuing purpose in God's plan.
Note that in Romans 9:6 Paul distinguishes between a literal and spiritual Israel and in Galatians 6:16 he calls the church "Israel."

I heard a rumor that Jeb is really Neo-conspy. Jeb if you are really a Protestant THEN fairness decrees you reveal what species of Protestant you are.
I can’t help but notice that Jeb started out denying that Jews are God’s chosen people as a race. Now that Karen and others have totally devistated that from the text of Scripture, he is reformulating his objection to refer to the spiritual teachings of Talmudic Judaism. That is a typical Neo-conspy tactic; make a doctrinal accusation, have yourself devistatingly proven WRONG & then pretend your argument was something else. I’m not impressed.
The Jews clearly are His chosen people, even if you want to say their post-Mosaic rabbinic rituals are at worst useless, sinful or harmful, or at best neutral(though I don’t believe that’s the case at all).
>So in that sense, yes God has a plan for the Jews and hasn't forsaken them. On the other hand, there is nothing in Romans 9-11 that says God approves of Judaism as practiced by non-Christian Jews or that Jews are doing anything positive spiritually. Paul calls them his "kinsmen according to the flesh." He doesn't call them his spiritual brothers.
I reply: It doesn’t need to explicitly teach that in the text. Catholic’s reject Sola Scriptura the Protestant heresy & novelty that teaches all doctrine must come from the Text alone since that very concept IS ITSELF not taught anywhere in the text of the Bible. Thus false by its own standards. You’re not going to impress me with any argument that starts with “Paul didn’t say”. You have to take the whole of Church teaching.
Also, Alexander VIII condemned the Jansenist heresy that taught that only Catholics receive saving graces from God and that Jews, heathen, heretics & schismatics do not. The truths that Judaism still retains from the Old Testament is a means of grace for them & what they developed from it isn’t all bad except where they explicitly reject Christ & Christianity. Also if the Jews receive extra-sacramental graces from God then it must filter down into their writings.
After all, the Greek philosophers like Plato & Aristotle were pagans, but the Church Fathers still used them & recognized the value of their logic and spiritual insights. How much more must this be true of those rely on the Old Testament Scripture, which is the word of God(something the Greek philosophers did not have)?
>The quote in Romans does not suport your position. When Paul says to Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" he is not approving of how non-Christian Jews practice their religion. He is calling them to their roots, which was the implicit faith they had in Jesus as the coming Messiah.
I reply: It supports the view they are elected. If you actually read Romans 10 & 11 very closely, St. Paul says that the Church is Israel but he also calls unbelieving Jews “Israel” & says that God’s promises to them have not been revoked. So your idea that only the Church is Israel is wrong. Also the Church makes a distinction between unbelievers by negation and by opposition. Paul’s condemnation refers to those Jews who knowingly reject the Truth(non-believers by opposition), not to Jews of later eras who are invincibly ignorant & thus non-believers by negation.
>I don't know exactly what Benedict said or did when he went to the synagogue in Cologne, but when Paul went to synagogues he preached the Gospel. I suspect that the synagogue in Cologne would invite Benedict and not, say, Billy Graham, has to do with the message.
Paul preached in the synagogue before Jewish Christians were excommunicated from Judaism. He was still a recognized Jewish rabbi so his actions were appropriate. Had B16 ambushed the synagogue today by preaching Jesus to them without letting them know he was going to do that, that would offend them more likely than convert them(I have personal experience with that, trust me). What’s important for the pope to do is erase distrust between Jews and Christians, & that will create a foundation so that we can invite them to believe in Jesus and join the One True Church(not your manmade sect, Jeb, that would be bad)
>Since you are not a dispensationalist, I don't imagine that you believe the land promises to the Jews are literally in effect.
Hmmm, I just thought I’d note this is another Neo-conspy tactic, throwing out tangents & changing the subject. Let me just briefly point out that the Church teaches that both Jews & Palestinians have rights to the Holy Land under natural law as their ancestral homeland. But it’s true the Church does not recognize a supernatural right to the land for the Jews only.
>If you study the NT you will see that everything that was promised to the Jews is fulfilled in the Church. "All God's promises are yes in Jesus Christ." What then remains of the Jews' calling? I suggest that when they convert to Christianity they will then find their true purpose and the reason for their election. They will do immeasurable good. Until then, my town's Jewish synagogue is doing about as much to advance the Kingdom of God as my local Unitarian-Universalist "church" or John Spong(which is to say, virtually nothing). God cares about the Jewish people, and what is prophesied in Romans 9-11 is their eventual conversion to Christianity (apparently at or near the Second Coming).
I’m all for Jews converting to the Church, but I do notice Jeb (if you’re not Neo-conspy) you do have the Protestant either/or mentality. It’s not either the Jews or the Church, it’s both the Jews & the Church. Just because they are the Chosen People and the Church recognizes that does not mean they don’t have to convert. Benedict 16 said explicitly in his books (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) so your alarmist objections are meaningless & harmful when bringing them to Messiah.

Paul's comment "I have become all things to all, to save at least some." is explicitly preceded by, "To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law."

Karen,
God cares about the Jewish people, and what is prophesied in Romans 9-11 is their eventual conversion to Christianity (apparently at or near the Second Coming).
So in that sense, yes God has a plan for the Jews and hasn't forsaken them. On the other hand, there is nothing in Romans 9-11 that says God approves of Judaism as practiced by non-Christian Jews or that Jews are doing anything positive spiritually. Paul calls them his "kinsmen according to the flesh." He doesn't call them his spiritual brothers.
The quote in Romans does not suport your position. When Paul says to Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" he is not approving of how non-Christian Jews practice their religion. He is calling them to their roots, which was the implicit faith they had in Jesus as the coming Messiah.
Let me give you an example. If Benedict 16 went to Spain and said "you are a Catholic people, to you belong the great saints such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross" would he be praising Catholicism as (non) practiced in Spain? Of course not - he would be calling them to their "roots" which they have foresaken in their secularism.
I don't know exactly what Benedict said or did when he went to the synagogue in Cologne, but when Paul went to synagogues he preached the Gospel. I suspect that the synagogue in Cologne would invite Benedict and not, say, Billy Graham, has to do with the message.
Since you are not a dispensationalist, I don't imagine that you believe the land promises to the Jews are literally in effect. If you study the NT you will see that everything that was promised to the Jews is fulfilled in the Church. "All God's promises are yes in Jesus Christ." What then remains of the Jews' calling? I suggest that when they convert to Christianity they will then find their true purpose and the reason for their election. They will do immeasurable good. Until then, my town's Jewish synagogue is doing about as much to advance the Kingdom of God as my local Unitarian-Universalist "church" or John Spong(which is to say, virtually nothing).

May a Catholic visit a synagogue and pray with those in attendance during a service ? Is singing allowed ?

Jeb Protestant,
You said earlier that "The gifts of God are irrevocable" and yet the verse that the CCC quoted stated clearly "for the gifts AND THE CALL of God are irrevocable."
Maybe you should consider how our Blessed Lord would always say to the Pharisees "Have you not read?". You are ignoring the Sacred Scriptures where they don't agree with your preconceived ideas.
All of Sacred Scripture has to be read as one whole, the Word of God. So you have to reconcile verses that don't agree with your twisted understanding. For example Matt. 23:1-3.
1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
2: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
3: so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Hi Jeb,
Before I say anything else, none of this means that Christians aren't also elect; both Jews and Christians are.
The Jews are elect; God intimately and continually worked with them establishing scripture, making promises and covenants to them, etc. and this is a unique part of their heritage. And when God promises something to those of Jewish heritage, he means to keep those promises. Even the revelations of Christianity began with this elect people. So when the question came up of whether these elect people were forsaken by God, Paul said of course not, and then went on to describe the plan of God's mercy for the elect, the natural branches of the good olive tree. That is, when the Jews didn't want to see or hear, and their hearts were hardened, the mercy extended to the Gentiles who had faith, who in turn the Jews would emulate and receive mercy. It's a mysterious plan of timing and efficacy--pretty cool how it works. But as you say is necessary, the Jews will convert.
Nobody should mistake "elect" for "guaranteed salvation regardless of faith", and no Gentile should think that they are not God's child either. Here's a really good explanation if you're interested in the Catholic position, which is that we Christians and Jews are both elect:
"The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds. While the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the identity of the Old Israel, nor deprive it from playing any role in God’s plan of the ages. In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days." -- from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303bt.asp
Benedict XVI's visiting and talking with Jewish people is pretty much in line with God's plan, actually. The visiting and talking is much more engaging than having the Jews try to witness us from afar.
The facts that Jews are elect and that they do need that faith actually aren't contradictory. Paul is not saying that an individual Jew doesn't need faith because they're part of the Jewish elect by heritage. That would contradict so many other things. Just about everybody agrees that it states the opposite. But Paul was not lying when he said that they are God's people, and when he said "as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers". It may seem like an apparent contradiction but it's not; Christians agree that the Word of God does not contradict itself.
Let's think carefully about whether we can say that the Jewish religion is false. The Jews were revealed 100% truth, but not 100% of the truth that was revealed to Christians. A Jew would be wrong to say that the Savior has not come, but the Jews do have 100% truthful revelation. They were elected to have what they had, given to them. As Christians, we believe that they just do not the fullness that we Christians have. (No Christian would say that God revealed lies to the Jews). ;-)
I wish I could be less wordy but I hope this helps to explain.

That's the problem with private interpretation of Scripture; one can say it means whatever one wants to believe. 2Peter 1:20 condemns private interpretaion of Scripture, and 1Timothy 3:15 says that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church.

Karen,
Read Romans 11 more closely. Paul says that unbelieving Jews, when they convert, will be grafted back in. In other words, the Christian faith is in direct link to the faith of OT believers. Only by partaking in the Christian faith does a Jew stand in spiritual continuity with Abraham. Paul teaches the same message in Galatians 4. And in Gal 6:16 he calls the church the "Israel of God." Or in Eph. 2, Paul says that Gentiles have now joined "the commonwealth of Israel."
Incidentally, you are ignoring the fact that in Romans 11 Paul says that the Jews are "enemies" of the Gospel. In other words, their religion is false and in opposition to the only message that can bring salvation.
The Jews in the Cologne synagogue need Jesus every bit as much as you and I.

Jeb Protestant, see Romans 11. It explains it quite a bit.
The Jews are elect as they always were, and are still referred to by Paul as "God's people", not God's ex-people, and God has not cast them away. Paul corrects the notion that they have been cast away by God or are not His people. Paul states that they are most dear for the sake of their fathers. That is a pretty strong and clear statement. Their heritage is not being trivialized or ignored by Paul; they as a people are obviously still distinguished because of it. If their heritage were now just a trivial matter, it would be nonsense for Paul to even refer to it in so strong and clear a manner. Of course, salvation was also preached to the Gentiles. The unbelief of the remaining Jews was used by God. We know that Jesus also taught that those who will not see shall not see, and that's true of any unbeliever, not just Jews specifically. Paul notes that Gentiles in times past also did not believe God. Due to Jewish unbelief, Christianity was then preached to Gentiles who did believe, as part of God's merciful plan. It's faith the Jews must have; that is what Abraham had even before there was the Law. Paul says that the Jews, the natural branches of the good olive tree, may be grafted in again. There will come a time when the Jews, the elect, will benefit by God's mercy. Salvation came to the Gentiles, so that the Jews may be emulous of them (emulate them).
"1 I SAY then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. 11 I say then, have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid. But by their offence, salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. 12 Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more the fulness of them? 14 If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them. 15 For if the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. 21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the wild olive tree, which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, were grafted into the good olive tree; how much more shall they that are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. 26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob [another name for Israel]. 27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief; 31 So these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. 33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? 36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen."

Marcionism is the belief that the God of the OT isn't the same as the God of the NT. I reject this belief. Jews in OT days were faithful to the God of the Bible.
However, since the coming of Jesus those Jews who reject Him are not followers of God.
Consider the leading schools of Judaism today. Orthodox Jews are the direct descendant of the Pharisees (see, e.g. the works of Neusner). Their religion cannot be seen as the teaching of the OT or anything other than a rejection of God and the Bible.
Reformed and "Conservative" Jews are religious liberals whose beliefs are little more than garden variety Unitarianism.
This is why Jesus and John the Baptist told the Jews that they were not the children of Abraham.

Jeb your a heretic anyway so why should we Catholics care about your unBiblical distortions.;-)
>Judaism is not a response to God. It is the rejection of God.
I reply: There is a term for the above statement. Marcionism.
>Jews don't believe in Jesus, the Trinity, the second coming, etc.
I reply: At least their religon has the virtue of being 100% true even if it is ONLY true as far as it goes(it's incomplete). Protestantism OTOH is a mixture of Truth & neo-enlightenment human error. It's not legitamate at all. Much less Biblical.

Jeb PROTESTant disagrees with the Church? Who would have thought that?
Mary ChristMass and every one have Happy and Holy New Year!
Take care and God bless!
J+M+J

And you might be interested in Salvation Is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History

I disagree.
The gifts of God are irrevocable, but they are fulfilled in the Church - which is Israel.
Judaism is not a response to God. It is the rejection of God. Jews don't believe in Jesus, the Trinity, the second coming, etc.
You might find this book - The Church is Israel Now - interesting:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9000/The...

Jeb Protestant,
Here is some food for thought from the CCC paragraph 839.
The Church and non-Christians
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
328 Rom 9:4-5.
329 Rom 11:29.

I am not familiar with the term "supersessionism". I was referring to the use of the term "so-called".

Paul taught supersessionism along with Jesus, read Romans 9-11.

Jeb, St. Paul didn't agree with you. I recommend his letters, also.