Mt 5,17-20 can be fully understood in the context of the hermeneutic work of the Jewish rabbis; the words used by Jesus refer to their exegetical methods and to the idea that the Torah cannot be modified. Jesus’ position anticipates one of the main elements of rabbinic Judaism. Given this context, this paper offers a new hypothesis about the original Aramaic version of Jesus’ words on the Torah’s fulfilment, in a time when the Pharisee’s position was starting to impose the importance of oral tradition alongside the written word of God. Using the root gmr Jesus enters into dialogue with contemporary Judaism, putting forward his own idea of fulfilment.
In the present article the author describes the issue of relation between Synagogue and Church in the context of Johannine writings. The author makes analysis of the Johannine texts in order to show the traces of polemic between Judaism and Christianity. He shows the hostility between Synagogue and Church in the light of terms like aposunagōgos, “Jews” and other polemical expressions which occur in the Gospel of John, in the Letters of John and the Book of Revelation. The author tries to answer the question of how Sitz im Leben of the Johannine writings influences their content. The analysis of Jewish and Christian sources shows the tension and hostility between Rabbinic Judaism and Johannine Community after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. It leads to gradual separation between Synagogue and Church. In this article there are shown the reasons for the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity and its meaning for the contemporary dialogue between Synagogue and Church.
The common layer of Jewish and Christian name systems consists of biblical names from the Old Testament. The comparison showing how these Old Testament names functioned in both faiths on Podlasie in 15th–16th centuries revealed a close connection between chosen names as well as their popularity over the centuries and cultural traditions formed by faith.
The article presents a critical analysis of Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s thesis that Judaism and Kant’s practical philosophy represent antagonistic tendencies of thought. This opposition, according to Leibowitz, consists in the claim that Kantian ethics sees the supreme value in human being, while in Judaism such a view can amount only to a usurpation of God’s sovereignty by man. The aim of the article is to show that after an investigation into its substance, Kant’s moral theory turns out to resemble in the essential respects Leibowitz’s view concerning Judaism.
Although the Council‘s declaration Nostra aetate has been absorbed by the magisterium, there are new challenges suggesting its acknowledgement and further development. The document’s significance resides in its foundation on Romans 9-11 and in the fact that it has been promulgated at all, in spite of enormous resistance in the years ahead. No. 528 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church rises up out of various official statements with respect to this topic: The three wise men from Jesus’ Epiphany are typical representatives of the pagan religions who have to turn to the Jews in order to receive “from them the messianic promise”. This insight corrects a romanticizing pluralism of religions as it becomes manifest in the terminology of the three “Abrahamic religions”. A further development of Nostra aetate should include two aspects: Overcoming the narrowing down of Judaism and Christianity as a “religion” without refeRence to realities like “the land”, and, secondly, deepening the theological understanding of the referral of Christianity towards Judaism, particularly in connection with the term “People of God”.