NationStates Jolt Archive

The Catholic Church is much too stone-stubborn to change it's doctrine simply to make Catholics look better. I think it's pretty clear from the Church's stance on many things that it is not interested in that sort of appeasement.

If you actually study history, church doctrine has changed *many* times, often due to outside political pressures. Sometimes they went back and forth between two opposing views two or three times, depending on who happened to be emporer.

I'm Catholic. I've taught many a lesson on Catholic doctrine and theology over the past few years in a Church-sponsored class.

The Church teaches many things which are historically inaccurate if you actually look into the records. That is not to say that I think they are destroying records, as the other poster claimed, but they certainly aren't going to tell you everything in a Church-sponsored class.

If you actually study history, church doctrine has changed *many* times, often due to outside political pressures. Sometimes they went back and forth between two opposing views two or three times, depending on who happened to be emporer.

The Catholic Church is always the same.

Yes, there has been. Christ established the One Church upon the cornerstone of Saint Peter and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

There was never a single church revolving around St. Peter, so I guess you guys screwed up from the beginning, didn't you?

The Catholic Church is always the same.

Wrong. The Church *claims* to have always been the same. In truth, there is no doctrine currently in the church that has *always* been.

It doesn't matter. If he was African, NAtive American, JApanese, chinese...in truth I don't know I don't care.

There was never a single church revolving around St. Peter, so I guess you guys screwed up from the beginning, didn't you?
Yes, there is. Over millenia up until today, the Chair of St. Peter forms the visible sign of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church. That is, the only Church of Iesus Christ.

Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED

If you actually study history, church doctrine has changed *many* times, often due to outside political pressures. Sometimes they went back and forth between two opposing views two or three times, depending on who happened to be emporer.

I'm well aware that Church doctrine has changed many times. I was referring to the Catholic Church as it stands within the last one hundred years. Generally, when I talk about an entity that exists today, I don't think of every moment in it's past as a frame of reference. I tend to think of it's current characteristics and maybe a few defining causes of those characteristics.

The Church teaches many things which are historically inaccurate if you actually look into the records. That is not to say that I think they are destroying records, as the other poster claimed, but they certainly aren't going to tell you everything in a Church-sponsored class.

Heh. I have resources other than a Church-sponsored class, thank you. And I have serious problems with many areas of Church policy. As far as the Church teaching things that are historically inaccurate...I would appreciate specifics and evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did occasionally teach historically inaccurate things, but I do like to have proof of such and not vague assertions.

Jesus' race was demigod and his religion was judaism.

No, the Blood of Christ is upon the Jews until the end of time.

Funny, I thought Jesus taught forgiveness and unconditional love.

Jesus was a woman. None more to say. Theres little proof of it but there is even little'er proof that Jesus was a man. When Jesus returns to us She will be a woman.

Yes, there is. Over millenia up until today, the Chair of St. Peter forms the visible sign of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church. That is, the only Church of Iesus Christ.

Wow, you are really deluded.

You do realize that "apostolic" referred to *all* of the apostles for about 400 years?

I'm a Christian, and I figure Jesus was probably a Middle-Eastern or North African type. :)

Jesus was a woman. None more to say. Theres little proof of it but there is even little'er proof that Jesus was a man. When Jesus returns to us She will be a woman.


Interestingly, many Middle Ages artists portrayed various Saints and pilgrims as suckling at the nipples of Jesus to receive divine milk from his breast. The image of Jesus as both father and mother appeared even through the Renaissance. It's only in the last few hundred years that things really changed to give such a rigid masculine image to the Christian faith.

Heh. I have resources other than a Church-sponsored class, thank you. And I have serious problems with many areas of Church policy. As far as the Church teaching things that are historically inaccurate...I would appreciate specifics and evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did occasionally teach historically inaccurate things, but I do like to have proof of such and not vague assertions.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is entirely based on the premise that the dogma has been followed by every church, everywhere, at every time. This has *never* been true. There is also the very simple fact that there was no pope or recognition of any such position until just before the East-West split, but the Catholic Church teaches that there has always been a pope and even lists several who explicitly stated in letters that they were *not* pope.

Wow, you are really deluded.

You do realize that "apostolic" referred to *all* of the apostles for about 400 years?
You are the deluded one and your baseless rhetoric is starting to grow quite petty and tiresome.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is entirely based on the premise that the dogma has been followed by every church, everywhere, at every time. This has *never* been true. There is also the very simple fact that there was no pope or recognition of any such position until just before the East-West split, but the Catholic Church teaches that there has always been a pope and even lists several who explicitly stated in letters that they were *not* pope.

I recall asking for evidence...

I recall asking for evidence...

Read a series of books calld "A History of Christian Thought" by Justo L. Gonzalez (a Catholic - imagine that).

"Documents of the Christian Church" edited by Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder is also very helpful - including quite a few "pope"'s letters.

You are the deluded one and your baseless rhetoric is starting to grow quite petty and tiresome.

I've been reading Dempublicents posted for quite a while now and can pretty much assure you that his/her responses are rarely baseless and are certainly not rhetoric. S/he is a well though, well informed individual with an elactrity and logic that I wish I could emulate better.

You are the deluded one and your baseless rhetoric is starting to grow quite petty and tiresome.

So history is just rhetoric to you?

Well, if it's really important- Jesus was not of any terrestrial race. He was of an angelic bloodstream, specifically the one that birthed the archangel Gabriel. Obviously, the Bible has censored some things out- from Daniel's brutal execution in the lion's den to Jonah being slowly crushed, starved, and suffocated inside the belly of a whale to Noah and his family drowning in the Ark because they were just too set on saving those chickens. But if you feel sorry for anyone, feel sorry for the chickens. Anyway, I'm getting off topic. What the Bible filtered out as inappropriate was that angels are flawed, or else they would have gotten there in time to gut the whale, kill the lions, or patch up that hole in the boat. But angels are worse than humans- by a longshot. They go on heavenly drinking binges that last for thousands upon thousands of years until their livers rot- but who gives a crap, there's no death up in Disneyland! Gabriel was a total whore. He went down to Earth, found some virgin flowers, and laid the whole "chosen one" messianic crap on them before getting some of that red-hot terrestrial lovin'. Moses was totally his son. Jesus was his son, and one of only a few that got in on that heavenly power. Mary? A virgin? Hell no! She was a dirty girl with plenty of experience after Gabriel got through with her. "Touched by an angel?" Not quite.
P.S. Abraham killed his son, by the way. The angel decided that following a flock of geese was more interesting, because a severe overdosage of cocaine led him to believe that they were actually flying donuts, begging to be eaten. On the upside, Abraham passed the test, but was damned anyways for the whole mortal sin of killing thing.

Read a series of books calld "A History of Christian Thought" by Justo L. Gonzalez (a Catholic - imagine that). "Documents of the Christian Church" edited by Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder is also very helpful - including quite a few "pope"'s letters.

Thanks. That's what I needed. Now I just need to convince my parents that their impoverished college kid needs copies of those. :D

Thanks. That's what I needed. Now I just need to convince my parents that their impoverished college kid needs copies of those. :D

They aren't that expensive, if I remember correctly, although the Gonzalez series is a series of three books. They are all paperback.

Although I did buy them at the same time that I bought all my other textbooks for that semester, so it could just be that they were much cheaper than most..... =)

I've been reading Dempublicents posted for quite a while now and can pretty much assure you that his/her responses are rarely baseless and are certainly not rhetoric. S/he is a well though, well informed individual with an elactrity and logic that I wish I could emulate better.
So he supports your agenda and has enough propaganda (without any evidence) to shout over anyone, and you are envious now. :rolleyes:

So he supports your agenda and has enough propaganda (without any evidence) to shout over anyone, and you are envious now. :rolleyes:

I hate to break it to you, darling, but I am not the one shouting propaganda.

Nor am I, by the way, male - as was pointed out in the post your were responding to.

On top of that, I have no agenda here but to point out the truth. You may believe that your particular version of your particular church is the true church, just don't delude yourself into thinking that it is exactly as Christ wanted it, or exactly as Peter would have seen it, or even exactly as someone 50 people down in apostolic succession would have seen it. Human beings are fallible and church doctrine for pretty much the first millineum was decided by politics and a vote by a bunch of self-important bishops who often had their own political power in mind, rather than actual doctrine.

So he supports your agenda and has enough propaganda (without any evidence) to shout over anyone, and you are envious now. :rolleyes:


I have no agenda beyond that of equality and freedom. Anyone who can support what they claim with resources and logical thought (whether they agree with me or not) is A-okay in my book.

Further, neither I or Dempublicients is the one shouting propaganda here. We are engaging in a civil conversation (on our parts) about this topic. I was just sharing with you my personal experiences with Dem and assuring you that she has a basis for his assertations. If the fact that we disagree with you is a problem to you and automatically pushes us from the realm of debate and into mere "prograndistas" then I really think that there is little point in continuing a conversation with you as you are not willing to listen but instead automatically reduce us to simpletons spouting PC mantras (oh god I sound like terminalia now). I ask you to stop and think who it is who is not willing to listen and give considerations to other arguements.

Have you ever had one of your beliefs truly challenged? If not is that because you refuse to let them be challenged?

I hate to break it to you, darling, but I am not the one shouting propaganda.

Nor am I, by the way, male - as was pointed out in the post your were responding to.
Oh no, with all that authoritative backing by pracus, how could one doubt any of your outrageous claims that seem to show up in each of your posts. :rolleyes:


"Equality" and "freedom" are Modernist heresies.

Oh no, with all that authoritative backing by pracus, how could one doubt any of your outrageous claims that seem to show up in each of your posts. :rolleyes:


"Equality" and "freedom" are Modernist heresies.


I'm authoritative now? That might be the best complement I've ever gotten on one of these DBs.

Oh no, with all that authoritative backing by pracus, how could one doubt any of your outrageous claims that seem to show up in each of your posts. :rolleyes:

I have yet to make any outrageous claims.

"Equality" and "freedom" are Modernist heresies.

I'm sure that anything you don't agree with is a "heresy", never mind that half of what the Catholic Church teaches these days would have been considered heresy in, say, 100 A.D. by at least half of the sees.

What race was Jesus, and what religion was Jesus? Don't be too hasty now.
First Jesus was of no race he was the only begotten Son of God and God ingarnate...Jesus was born to a Jewish woman and a Jewish family descended from King David...So by race and religion if one had to classify him Christ was a Jewish(Hewbrew) Jew...

he was jewish and whether you think that's a religion or a race or whatever... i don't care. i don't know what race he would be...

Same here! I'm not even sure if he belonged to a surton race :confused:

Yes, there is. Over millenia up until today, the Chair of St. Peter forms the visible sign of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church. That is, the only Church of Iesus Christ.
Acutually Fundamental Baptist have been around just as long if not longer then the Catholic Church...Christ did not know denominations...

Jesus was boring. Can you believe he didn't really have an assault rifle? Just a myth, it seems! Ah, oh well... Judas was more my kind of guy, anyway. Hey, after all, I'm named for him. That's right. Read my mouthparts. Mouthparts? Talking. Mudcrab. Merchant.

Servus Dei,

Something no one has pointed out yet. You seem to be Catholic (pardon me if I am wrong). If this is the case, you should know that the Pope forgave the Jews quite some time ago. Christ's Blood is no longer on the hands of the Jews, if it ever was. Even if that was the case, the Jews are G-d's chosen people. They have a special deal with G-d. Nowhere in the Bible does G-d say, "I hereby revoke my promise to the Jews; I hereby unchoose them. Now some other people are going to be my chosen people." God loves everyone, Jews and Christians alike -- and Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and so on.

Not that I think a lot of Jews were losing sleep over it, or anything. To those of the Jewish religion, Jesus of Nazareth was a good man and a prophet, but a fairly minor one. I doubt most people spend time worrying about who killed Jesus Christ.

As for me, I believe I killed him. You killed him. We all killed him -- but he was a willing sacrifice. He was G-d and man, and it was man who asked to "let this cup pass from me," and cried out "my G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me?" It was G-d that healed the ear one of the apostles cut off of one of the soldiers send to arrest Jesus, and it was G-d who said, "Let not my will, but thine, be done." Jesus died for everyone, and so everyone is responsible for his death -- and everyone is forgiven.

IMO, religion or lack thereof does not matter. Accepting Jesus as a "personal savior" does not matter. Living a good life and showing the unconditional love that G-d shows is what matters. If you do that as a Christian, good for you -- and if you do it as a Jew, Pagan, or atheist, equally good for you.

Okay, enough Christian dogma. I'm not interested in converting anyone; just thought that in the spirit of the thread, I share my beliefs. (For example -- as an Episcopalian I believe everyone is a "saint." Everyone. People just come that way.) I try to be openminded. Only G-d is omniscient. Since I am not G-d, I am most certainly not omniscient, so who am I to claim one way is better than the others? My way works for me, but it's certainly not for everybody. I accept that and in fact glorify in the diversity of beliefs in this world; I am saddened when they lead to hatred in war.

In answer to the orginal question, Jesus was Middle Eastern, meaning dusky or dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes. He was a Jew -- in fact, he was a rabbi, as testified in the Bible. He preached in his home town, and no one would believe he was a prophet or the Messiah. The idea that Jesus Christ was white or Christian has no basis in fact.


EDIT: spelling errors; it's past my bedtime

Actually, there was never "one" Church with a single dogma. Even before the East-West split, there were countless movements outside the "Catholic" church. Even within the church, there were disagreements and movements. Hell, there were at least a hundred years spent just arguing over the term "homousius".



And there was no "pope" for the 400-500 years you spoke of. The bishop of the Roman church was not seen as being any higher than the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, or any other major center. In fact, there are writings from those that the Catholic Church now likes to call "popes" specifically stating that they are *not* to be called pope.



In truth, Jesus' teachings were incredibly close to the Essenes, a Jewish sect of the time, so I wouldn't really call him "rebellious." And all of the earliest members of the church considered themselves Jews who just had found the Messiah.



That's funny, considering how much early Christian writing was dedicated to demonstrating how they *were* still Jews.

Hmm, I basically agree with you, I was ranting before rather than thinking clearly :). I get annoyed how the Eastern Churches, with some of the oldest Christian traditions, always seem to get left out. And yes, I realise there was no pope during the timeperiods you mentioned, I was talking about modern Catholicism. Before the schism the churches were more or less a pure democracy, everyone voted on everyone and no one, except Jesus I guess, was in charge, probably why they always bickered over everything. The Eastern Churches are still rather democratic. Anyway, nice post
:).

What difference does it make? He was just another profet,like Buddha or Mohammed.

Yes he was Jewish and yes,he was a follower of Moses' teachings.We made him sON oF gOD.

I also want to know why a lot of people tend to have such a broad opinion about Jesus' ethnic and religious background.

Because most of us are rather ethnocentric and tend to view things from our own perspective.

As a member of the Jewish race, Jesus practiced the Jewish faith. Indeed, there are a number of indications that he never intended his followers to depart from the Jewish religion or start a new one.

Acutually Fundamental Baptist have been around just as long if not longer then the Catholic Church...Christ did not know denominations...

??? :confused:

??? :confused:

That's a fairly common assertion among Christian groups. The church that my grandfather is pastor of holds a similar view to Peardon's.

I am defending the doctrines of Christianity.

No, you are not and I do not think you really believe you are either[1]. You possibly are not even Christian - though i'm not sure if you are anti-christian or just like the riot caused by your words. I'm currently *guessing* the latter; though the rather limited knowledge of the Bible you have displayed thusfar can of course also be a mindtrick.

Whatever you are... you are in any case a pretty good psychologist. Is this for a thesis perhaps ?

[1] If you are I pity you.

That's a fairly common assertion among Christian groups. The church that my grandfather is pastor of holds a similar view to Peardon's.

I have an uncle who's a Baptist preacher, and he's not quite that far out in left field.

I have an uncle who's a Baptist preacher, and he's not quite that far out in left field.

Good. My grandfather pastors his local Church of Christ. The CoC has some very interesting views like that they're the only true Christians. A number of the CoC's have been moving away from that particular doctrine lately, however.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one may come to the Father except by me. - John 14:6

This statement by Jesus says exactly who He is:

By starting the statement with "I am" Jesus is claiming to be the God of the Jews. For those unfamiliar, when Moses asked God who he should say sent him to Pharaoh, God replied from the burning bush: "I am that I am." This reference is unmistakable and if you doubt it, feel free to look it up. He makes the reference several other times.

By stating that He is "the way the truth and the life", it means, among other things:
1) He is the way.
2) He is the true way.
3) He is the way that gives life.

The last part is the one that most people dont like, especially Christians. Yes, Jesus does claim to be the exclusive link to God; as much as some people do not like to hear it. However, if you look at it from the other point of view, that there does not exist a link between God and man without Jesus to connect us... then you tend to just be thankful that there is a way at all.

You cannot say that someone who claims to be God is only a good man, a prophet, or a teacher. Its all or nothing - either he is God, or he is nuts. There is no middle ground.

You do not need to interpret or twist a man's words to find their meaning. If you take the time to read the bible with an open mind you will find that Jesus does indeed claim to be God, the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the only link from God the Father who sent Him.

Also Jesus of course was a Jew in all possible forms of the word.

I apologize if this post sounds simple and preachy, I know it probably does, especially since I'm an outsider to this thread. I just couldnt figure out how to say "exclusive salvation found here" without sounding exclusive, probably all this time around Baptists. Just bear in mind that this is the boiled down version since I'm not worth much at this hour, and that the complicated concepts which you're more keen to discuss build off of this foundation.

What, by saying 'I am' he is referring back to something in the Old Testament? Because I said 'I am' yesterday and I'm sure I didn't mean that myself. If Jesus could only say 'I am' when he was referring back to the Old Testament then he must have had some serious problems expressing himself when he didn't want to do that.

Jesus was Jewish by race (or 'Galilean' or 'Semitic' or whatever. It doesn't matter what you call it, we all know where he was born).

Jesus, as God, can't really be said to have had a religion. Did he worship himself? I think not. But he did appear among the Jews, and doubtless his family were all Jewish by religion.

Nowhere in the bible does he state that he has abandoned Judaism. Nowhere in the bible does he say he's the messiah. He was a Jew. Or maybe a Wiccan, I'm not sure.

But what it does say is that he was the son of God and that his life fufuills the Messianic propheices of the Old Testement.

Jesus lived in India.

I


[QUOTE]You do not need to interpret or twist a man's words to find their meaning. If you take the time to read the bible with an open mind you will find that Jesus does indeed claim to be God, the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the only link from God the Father who sent Him.

I can't ever find the place in the Bible where Jesus says "I am God." He says things that many people interpet to mean that Jesus is God. I just don't think that God is divisible. God sent Messengers to humanity, who spoke with the authority of God. Why else would Jesus make so many references to His Father being greater than Him. How could God be greater that God. Think about it: If Jesus is God and Jesus says that His Father is greater than Him, then God is greater than God. If what you say is true. This is impossible don't you think?

Jesus lived in India.


Come again?

I can't ever find the place in the Bible where Jesus says "I am God." He says things that many people interpet to mean that Jesus is God. I just don't think that God is divisible. God sent Messengers to humanity, who spoke with the authority of God. Why else would Jesus make so many references to His Father being greater than Him. How could God be greater that God. Think about it: If Jesus is God and Jesus says that His Father is greater than Him, then God is greater than God. If what you say is true. This is impossible don't you think?

This is it

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

This is it

If Son of God means that God had a baby and Jesus was that baby then I suppose in very concrete thinking Jesus is God. I think that Jesus was using the term as a title. But then answer how could God be greater than God?

If Son of God means that God had a baby and Jesus was that baby then I suppose in very concrete thinking Jesus is God. I think that Jesus was using the term as a title. But then answer how could God be greater than God?

Can you quote the verses and I will do my best to explain (I cant guarnte I will be able to. The Trinity is very complicated)

Can you quote the verses and I will do my best to explain (I cant guarnte I will be able to. The Trinity is very complicated)
There are many places in the NT whereJesus says My Father is greater than me I return to Him. I will go find the exact places.

In the meantime read this.

Inasmuch as human interpretations and blind imitations differ widely, religious strife and disagreement have arisen among mankind, the light of true religion has been extinguished and the unity of the world of humanity destroyed. The prophets of God voiced the spirit of unity and agreement. They have been the founders of divine reality. Therefore if the nations of the world forsake imitations and investigate the reality underlying the revealed Word of God they will agree and become reconciled. For reality is one and not multiple.

The nations and religions are steeped in blind and bigoted imitations. A man is a Jew because his father was a Jew. The Muhammadan follows implicitly the footsteps of his ancestors in belief and observance. The Buddhist is true to his heredity as a Buddhist. That is to say they profess religious belief blindly and without investigation, making unity and agreement impossible. It is evident therefore that this condition will not be remedied without a reformation in the world of religion. In other words the fundamental reality of the divine religions must be renewed, reformed, revoiced to mankind.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 226)

Here it is.

If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

(King James Bible, John)

By killing Him, the Jews drew their last straw with God and the corrupt Jewish religion was destroyed as evident by the the destruction of the temple.
Jesus did not resurrect as a Jew, but as a light to all the world.
funny... i always heard that the christians were always thaught that the JEws killed Jesus as an attempt to incite hate against them and that the actual people who killed him were the roman militia (not to mention that the romans had a track record for cruxifictions)

then of course, I could always be wrong...

Inasmuch as human interpretations and blind imitations differ widely, religious strife and disagreement have arisen among mankind, the light of true religion has been extinguished and the unity of the world of humanity destroyed. The prophets of God voiced the spirit of unity and agreement. They have been the founders of divine reality. Therefore if the nations of the world forsake imitations and investigate the reality underlying the revealed Word of God they will agree and become reconciled. For reality is one and not multiple.

The nations and religions are steeped in blind and bigoted imitations. A man is a Jew because his father was a Jew. The Muhammadan follows implicitly the footsteps of his ancestors in belief and observance. The Buddhist is true to his heredity as a Buddhist. That is to say they profess religious belief blindly and without investigation, making unity and agreement impossible. It is evident therefore that this condition will not be remedied without a reformation in the world of religion. In other words the fundamental reality of the divine religions must be renewed, reformed, revoiced to mankind.


An extremely basic arguement, IE made up of the following basic strands
Religion is bad because
1- No one can every agree on it
2- It causes wars
3- It is in some cases heriditary and foced upon people
4- Some people follow it blindly

Ok so I will deal with these points one by one

1) No one can every agree on politics either, does that mean politics is bad? The fact that discussion and disagreement takes place is good as it builds faith and makes people intellegent. It also is a fact of diversity, wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed

2) Territory causes wars too, and political ambition, and resorces. All of these way more than religion. While wars may have a religious bent most of the time it is a territorial issue or a politicans impirilistic ambition.

3) If you refuse parents to teach things to their children you are interfearing in that parents right to bring up its children. You cant do that. Eveyone has a right to bring up their children in whatever way they want, provided that it does not threaten the life of the child

4) Some people do indeed follow religion blindly. Most others though analysise it and examine it. Most athiests think that if you analyise and examine it enough it falls apart but that isnt the case.

Here it is.

If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


Can you give the verse, I would like to put it in some kind of context

Don't focus on who he was, what he was like, what religion he was, etc. Focus on what he taught.

Yes.

funny... i always heard that the christians were always thaught that the JEws killed Jesus as an attempt to incite hate against them and that the actual people who killed him were the roman militia (not to mention that the romans had a track record for cruxifictions)

The Bible actually says that he was killed by the Romans. I don't really know where the Jewish thing comes from, except that they had debates in the synogogue. It was a crowd that decided to release Barabbas (sorry if I spelt that wrong), and Pilate that washed his hands of Jesus, so it's illogical to say it was the Jews. Also, yes, cruxifictions were a Roman method of execution; the Jews probably would have stoned him.

Question:
Why do so many people act like the crucifiction of Jesus Christ was a bad thing ? If one accepts Christian doctrine it is due to his sacrifice people can get into heaven again after all -and he did come back to life.

One could even argue Jesus *purpose* was to suffer for all mankinds sin.
Whoever crucified him (Jews, Romans or whoever you believe responsible)therefor was doing:
a. exactly what the Lord wanted them to do
b. humanity a favour.

So be thankful.

funny... i always heard that the christians were always thaught that the JEws killed Jesus as an attempt to incite hate against them and that the actual people who killed him were the roman militia (not to mention that the romans had a track record for cruxifictions)

I think the people most responsible where not the "Jews" but the religious authorities who feared the power of the words the Jesus spoke and its effect on the people. If what Jesus said was true then their authority, their position was in question. This is what Jesus warned the His followers of, to look for the spirit of His return and not be blinded by their own egos and to not follow blind imitation. He promised His return in the clouds. Take clouds to mean the things in our hearts that prevent us from seeing the spiritual truth.

Can you give the verse, I would like to put it in some kind of context

John


14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Question:
Why do so many people act like the crucifiction of Jesus Christ was a bad thing ? If one accepts Christian doctrine it is due to his sacrifice people can get into heaven again after all -and he did come back to life.

One could even argue Jesus *purpose* was to suffer for all mankinds sin.
Whoever crucified him (Jews, Romans or whoever you believe responsible)therefor was doing:
a. exactly what the Lord wanted them to do
b. humanity a favour.

So be thankful.

I don't remember people sounding like it was "bad." What would the world have been like if the religious authorities had put their ego aside and bowed down to the authority to the Mouthpiece of God on earth. History would have been much different. The same is true is today. The task facing every religious person of whatever faith is are you willing to set aside your ego and look at the spiritual truth of the Return.

Your question of race and religion;

Jesus was Hebrew, decended from the line of David. Although he initially followed the faith of his mother and father, in which he was well versed, he also adopted the religious practices of a Nazarene (one feature of which included the fact that he wore his hair longer than most of the men at his time).

After beginning his ministry, however, Jesus' teachings began to display a knowledge of a much older religion, TAOISM (see "Jesus and Lao Tzo: 100 Parallel Passages"). At least one of the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament) relates the visitation of wise men bringing gifts to the home of Jesus when he was a boy. One has to wonder if there was a little scroll of the Tao Teh Ching amidst those packages somewhere, or if Jesus spent some of his 18 "lost years" traveling abroad in a search for enlightenment.

John
14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Ok, this is what I like to call a trinity conundrum. A statement regarding the trinity which is two things

A) exceedingly confusing and seemingly contridctory but...

B) irrelevent to the Christian faith as a whole

The idea of the Holy Spirt, Jesus and God being one and the same is complicated. I can only help by makeing this statement of how I come to understand it. In both Jesus and the holy spirit is a quality of God. We dont know what that quality is exactly but God is the one who IS that quality. In that respect Jesus and the Holy Spirity are God because they have that quality but they also have other qualities (Jesus being corporeal for example) that makes them diffrent and therefore distinct. I would therefore submit that God because he IS the deffinitive quality that the other two have (but have other things) that God is greater than them. I dont know how exactly, and I dont even know if any of the logic that I have produced here is accurate, but thats how it appers to me.

An extremely basic arguement, IE made up of the following basic strands
Religion is bad because
1- No one can every agree on it
2- It causes wars
3- It is in some cases heriditary and foced upon people
4- Some people follow it blindly

Ok so I will deal with these points one by one

1) No one can every agree on politics either, does that mean politics is bad? The fact that discussion and disagreement takes place is good as it builds faith and makes people intellegent. It also is a fact of diversity, wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed

2) Territory causes wars too, and political ambition, and resorces. All of these way more than religion. While wars may have a religious bent most of the time it is a territorial issue or a politicans impirilistic ambition.

3) If you refuse parents to teach things to their children you are interfearing in that parents right to bring up its children. You cant do that. Eveyone has a right to bring up their children in whatever way they want, provided that it does not threaten the life of the child

4) Some people do indeed follow religion blindly. Most others though analysise it and examine it. Most athiests think that if you analyise and examine it enough it falls apart but that isnt the case.

Go read the quote again. It is not saying religion is bad. Blind imitation is bad.
Discussion is not what He is taking about, war, bigotry is more like it.

Go read the quote again. It is not saying religion is bad. Blind imitation is bad.
Discussion is not what He is taking about, war, bigotry is more like it.

Territiory causes war too. Is he therefore saying "Territory is bad?"

By the way, my equation:

Judaism + Paganism = Christianity

The 10 commandments given to Moses said that we shouldn't make idols, but look at all the people in churches worshiping statues of saints. Oh, and the drinking of "blood" in Mass. Don't you see it?

(Ste Jeanne d'Arc is good, though! Je l'aime! ^^)

The more correct equation would be Judaism + Paganism = Catholisism sp?
The true church of Christ has been restored since then.

Anyway, Jesus was most definitely a Jew. The Jewish Religion was waiting for a Messiah, and Jesus was that Messiah, only they didn't realize it. So I guess you could say that Christians are Jews that believe the Messiah came. Why are the religions so different? Because when Jesus came he fulfilled the Law of Moses. The Jewish people at that point had lost site that all the detailed traditions they had were physical symbols of spiritual truths, Jesus, as the Messiah, created a way of thinking that was focused on obeying laws more spiritually focused than laws like, don't take too many steps on the sabbath. The Higher law is what God originally gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai, but it was taken away when Moses saw the corruption of the people at that point, at which point he went back up and got the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. Jesus was a Jew. Judaism and Christianity are basically the same thing with one primary difference: One believes Jehovah has come, One believes He hasn't.

Ok, this is what I like to call a trinity conundrum. A statement regarding the trinity which is two things

A) exceedingly confusing and seemingly contridctory but...

B) irrelevent to the Christian faith as a whole

The idea of the Holy Spirt, Jesus and God being one and the same is complicated. I can only help by makeing this statement of how I come to understand it. In both Jesus and the holy spirit is a quality of God. We dont know what that quality is exactly but God is the one who IS that quality. In that respect Jesus and the Holy Spirity are God because they have that quality but they also have other qualities (Jesus being corporeal for example) that makes them diffrent and therefore distinct. I would therefore submit that God because he IS the deffinitive quality that the other two have (but have other things) that God is greater than them. I dont know how exactly, and I dont even know if any of the logic that I have produced here is accurate, but thats how it appers to me.

This is a difficult concept, I agree. And I do believe in God. And truthfully I believe it is ok if someone thinks of Jesus as God. After all He came here speaking for God. Just like a man might send his son on a mission and say to him you can speak for me on this task. You know what I want. So if someone sees you and hears you it is like seeing me and hearing me. But it is also proper to say that Jesus and God are not the same. There is only one God. It was Abraham who taught us that. This idea of Jesus as God incarnate is the test that Christians have to face regarding the Return. Just as they had to face it with the coming of Muhammed.

No, you are not and I do not think you really believe you are either[1]. You possibly are not even Christian - though i'm not sure if you are anti-christian or just like the riot caused by your words. I'm currently *guessing* the latter; though the rather limited knowledge of the Bible you have displayed thusfar can of course also be a mindtrick.

Whatever you are... you are in any case a pretty good psychologist. Is this for a thesis perhaps ?

[1] If you are I pity you.
Yes, I am. The Jews killed Christ, as the Church has always taught.

Territiory causes war too. Is he therefore saying "Territory is bad?"

Read the quote again. Does he say terriority is bad? No He says that war is bad. He says that fighting over religion is bad for many reasons but mostly because all of Gods Messengers are essentialy the same. It is humankinds ego that separates humanity one from the other not the Messengers of God.

Acutually Fundamental Baptist have been around just as long if not longer then the Catholic Church...Christ did not know denominations...
"Denominations" are a Protestant element. The Baptists are just one of thousands.

I don't remember people sounding like it was "bad."
This comment was spawned by one particular person: one who in this topic repeatedly stated that the Jews are bad people because they crucified Jesus. Most of the arguments thrown back at him were af the type: "no, the Romans crucified Jesus". "You can't blame all Jews for the actions of a few" etc. To me this suggests that most are of the opinion that crucifying Jesus was a bad thing to do. My question is now *why* that is the case.

What would the world have been like if the religious authorities had put their ego aside and bowed down to the authority to the Mouthpiece of God on earth.

The general public would not have listened - religion without drama has very little appeal. And this obvious wasn't the Lords intention anyway; if he wanted a mouthpiece people listened to he could just have send a few angels. Jesus was therefor created as human with a specific purpose - and I believe that that purpose was to sacrifice himself. Which, as I said, means the people that nailed him to the cross were in fact helping him.

Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified.
And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.
And the whole people answering, cried out: His blood be upon us and our children!
(Gospel According to Saint Matthew xxviiXXII-XXV)

[QUOTE=P14yc3]I




I can't ever find the place in the Bible where Jesus says "I am God." He says things that many people interpet to mean that Jesus is God. I just don't think that God is divisible. God sent Messengers to humanity, who spoke with the authority of God. Why else would Jesus make so many references to His Father being greater than Him. How could God be greater that God. Think about it: If Jesus is God and Jesus says that His Father is greater than Him, then God is greater than God. If what you say is true. This is impossible don't you think?

Jesus is the Son Of God, the Only Begotten of the Father.....they are two separate beings. Jesus himself made this clear. Together with the Holy Ghost they create the Godhead. Jesus is God in every sense of the word, He is perfect, He is immortal, He is all knowing and powerful....He is that He is.but He is not the Father. He is the Creator, Saviour, and Messiah. He is the Son of the Father.

This comment was spawned by one particular person: one who in this topic repeatedly stated that the Jews are bad people because they crucified Jesus. Most of the arguments thrown back at him were af the type: "no, the Romans crucified Jesus". "You can't blame all Jews for the actions of a few" etc. To me this suggests that most are of the opinion that crucifying Jesus was a bad thing to do. My question is now *why* that is the case.



The general public would not have listened - religion without drama has very little appeal. And this obvious wasn't the Lords intention anyway; if he wanted a mouthpiece people listened to he could just have send a few angels. Jesus was therefor created as human with a specific purpose - and I believe that that purpose was to sacrifice himself. Which, as I said, means the people that nailed him to the cross were in fact helping him.

I'm no Biblical scholar, I didn't even like school all that much. But from my understanding the general public was listening very closely that is why the religious authories were so worried. The crowds who followed Jesus were gettng too large. I think Jesus did fulfill His purpose, no doubt about that. But certainly God's will is flexible enough that it could encompass the possibility of people accepting the Reality of Christ and changing history as we know it. The real question is will people be flexible enough to put aside their cherished ideas and accept the Return if it doesn't happen like they are expecting.

Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified.
And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.
And the whole people answering, cried out: His blood be upon us and our children!
(Gospel According to Saint Matthew xxviiXXII-XXV)

I will not respond to anyone who uses font size as large as yours.

I will not respond to anyone who uses font size as large as yours.
There's your excuse, deceiver... :rolleyes:

I think Jesus did fulfill His purpose, no doubt about that. But certainly God's will is flexible enough that it could encompass the possibility of people accepting the Reality of Christ and changing history as we know it.

I *personally* do not think so - i believe the whole point was that Jesus had to make a choice - just like Adam and Eve. And he made the right one according to the lord: he showed he considered some things more important than himself. But this is my personal opinion, and as you said:

The real question is will people be flexible enough to put aside their cherished ideas

There's your excuse, deceiver... :rolleyes:

What are you so afraid of? That there may be truth out there that is at odds with your blind imitation?

Jesus WAS Jewish, he was raised with Jewish traditions and beliefs. Remember when he was young (thirteen or something) and his mother couldn't find him, and when she did, he was amazing the religious leaders with his knowledge about the scriptures and all that good stuff. Even though he eventually started the Christian faith, he was Jewish. The Jews as a whole are not evil, it's just that every now and then you get someone who becomes drunk on power (the pharisees, in Jesus' case) who then becomes corrupt, and when someone challenges their authority, they often get violent. If the pharisees had not told Pilate that they wanted Jesus crucified, Jesus would not have been done away with. The Romans were worried about a rebellion, which probably would have occurred if they had not done anything, so they basically are responsibel, but it would not have happened were it not for the Jews. And that thing about becoming corrupt is not limited to Jews, it applies to everyone. Human's are innately evil (you can't really deny that).

In regards to race, Jesus must have looked middle eastern, his ancestors were from the middle east, and unless he was albino, he had darker skin, dark hair, and dark eyes. It only makes sense!

Servus Dei, you're a closeminded, possibly anti-semetic, and unbelievably ignorant!!!

And catholics AREN'T Christians, they do worship idols (statues of Mary), they have added a number of books to the Bible (when there is a direct warning in the last few sentences of the Bible), and they do a number of other non-christian things. Catholocism is a crisis in faith.
makes sense to me(not religious BTW he just made a good point for all rerligious peeps)

I *personally* do not think so - i believe the whole point was that Jesus had to make a choice - just like Adam and Eve. And he made the right one according to the lord: he showed he considered some things more important than himself. But this my personal opinion, and as you said:

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are saying here. Did Adam and Eve make the wrong choice? I read the Creation story as something much larger than the act of eating forbidden fruit.

Yes, I am. The Jews killed Christ, as the Church has always taught.

Jesus said "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us."
Jesus taught compassion and tolerance.

The Church taught people to hate those who have committed tresspasses.
The Church taught people to Punish sinners, not forgive them.

Doesn't that make the Church heretics? Why do you trust the word of those who have defiled Jesus' teachings?

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are saying here. Did Adam and Eve make the wrong choice? I read the Creation story as something much larger than the act of eating forbidden fruit.

So did I - but do you truly believe one can have a deep and meaningful debate about the underlying concepts and thoughts of the Bible on this forum ? Where some people shout 'heathen' if you even dare to suggest that their translation of the bible may not be the best thing to base an absolute *literal* belief on ? Where people immediately shout 'nonsense!' when someone claims that some Christian traditions have nothing to do with Jesus, but find their roots in pagan rituals/holidays ?

No. Best to keep it simple. Concentrate on aspects like people being cast out of paradise and the popular opinion that this was a bad thing[tm] - even though I personally do not agree with that. But that can be adressed later. Small steps.

Jesus said "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us."
Jesus taught compassion and tolerance.

The Church taught people to hate those who have committed tresspasses.
The Church taught people to Punish sinners, not forgive them.

Doesn't that make the Church heretics? Why do you trust the word of those who have defiled Jesus' teachings?
I cannot dignify idiotic, outrageous claims with even a direct response.

I cannot dignify idiotic, outrageous claims with even a direct response.

Ever hear of the spanish inquisition? Was that forgiveness, or punishment?

Ever hear of the spanish inquisition? Was that forgiveness, or punishment?

Neither, of course. It was a group of religious zealots totally out of control.

So did I - but do you truly believe one can have a deep and meaningful debate about the underlying concepts and thoughts of the Bible on this forum ? Where some people shout 'heathen' if you even dare to suggest that their translation of the bible may not be the best thing to base an absolute *literal* belief on ? Where people immediately shout 'nonsense!' when someone claims that some Christian traditions have nothing to do with Jesus, but find their roots in pagan rituals/holidays ?

No. Best to keep it simple. Concentrate on aspects like people being cast out of paradise and the popular opinion that this was a bad thing[tm] - even though I personally do not agree with that. But that can be adressed later. Small steps.

I agree. I tend to just ignore the comments that really offer nothing to the discussion. The bible quote about...pearls before swine comes to mind. I really see the OT and NT as preparation for the Return.

Neither, of course. It was a group of religious zealots totally out of control.

They were supported by the church for the most part, it wasn't untill the Pope who allowed their creation was replaced that they were officialy banned.

But still, the Church has a long history of intolerence and reluctence to forgive, which goes against the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, how can one trust them to be the shepards of the Catholic faith, when they themselves preach contradictions?

They were supported by the church for the most part, it wasn't untill the Pope who allowed their creation was replaced that they were officialy banned.

But still, the Church has a long history of intolerence and reluctence to forgive, which goes against the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, how can one trust them to be the shepards of the Catholic faith, when they themselves preach contradictions?

Very true. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and to forgive them for wronging us. The spanish inquisition is the totally opposite of that, and that is one reason why I hold no respect for the Catholic church. The bible teaches us to be forgiving- which is why I'm a forgiving guy.

No. Best to keep it simple. Concentrate on aspects like people being cast out of paradise and the popular opinion that this was a bad thing[tm] - even though I personally do not agree with that. But that can be adressed later. Small steps.

I have an explanation of the Adam and Eve story (It is not my personel work.)that is quite fascinating if you would like to read it?

I have an uncle who's a Baptist preacher, and he's not quite that far out in left field.

If he's Baptist, shouldn't it be right field?

Of course there would have been no need, there would be no Christians that needed to reform because there would be no Christians.

what would be so wrong with that? i know of few other religions that are so confused of their roots and must fight each other over stupid and minute details. niether side has NO undisputable evidence to back them up and the argument never gets anywhere. i believe jesus' teachings are extremely relevant to todays world and everything thing else in the bible can be ignored...thats only my opinion, it works for me(and no, im not a christian. i am wiccan) who cares what he looked like and who killed him.....here, i'll settle it....he looked like a human male and other humans killed him, probably because they didnt like him. done. i think the world would be a better place without christianity, only because jesus' message gets so screwed up in the translation that it causes more destruction and harm than good. im not anti-christian, just anti-idiot...and theres too many.

My belief is jesus was Jewish, thus semitic, as if it really even matters. it didn't to him. He came to save black, white, semitic, asian, etc.....Race is a non-sequitor that is truly only effective for identification, a description like height and weight.

Ever hear of the spanish inquisition? Was that forgiveness, or punishment?

Neither, it was about politics and money. The Monarchy in Spain saw Catholicism as a good rallying cry to drive out the Muslims from Grenada and Steal money from the Jews who had no religious prohibition against earning money.

Just like how we have a handful of wackjobs in this country who see the war in Iraq as a Christian Crusade against Islam and this makes the Insane wing of the Republican party (and to a lesser extent the Stupid and Evil wings) think that fighting a war for money is actually a religious duty.

Jesus was Bob Marley's Great Great Grandad! :D
Hahahahahaaaa
No offence to Christians :eek:

Ever hear of the spanish inquisition? Was that forgiveness, or punishment?
Suppression of heresy...

Suppression of heresy...

Coming from you that is laughable.

Suppression of heresy...


Funny, I don't remember Jesus saying anything about torturing or killing people. EVER.

Suppression of heresy...
Hahahahahahhahaha

The Blood of Christ is upon the Jews. This has always been taught by the Holy Church.

But since Jews aren't Catholics... why should we care?

Talmudism did not spawn the Divinely revealed Christian Faith.

Actually... since Jesus was a Pharisee... :wink:

But since Jews aren't Catholics... why should we care?

Because Jews are living freely amongst Catholics.

Because Jews are living freely amongst Catholics.

And let me guess, you think that they shouldn't be?

I cannot dignify idiotic, outrageous claims with even a direct response.

So Jesus did not teach tolerance and forgiveness?

And let me guess, you think that they shouldn't be?
'Tis the Church teaching...

Because Jews are living freely amongst Catholics.

And? What does that have to do with anything? Catholics are living amongst Protestants, too. What's your point?

And? What does that have to do with anything? Catholics are living amongst Protestants, too. What's your point?
The Catholic Church teaches that Jews are to be outcasts. God cursed them to be outcasts at the beginning of time.

What race was Jesus, and what religion was Jesus? Don't be too hasty now.
He was jewish and he was hebrew. Big deal.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jews are to be outcasts.

And? Why should I care about your theology? How does this have any impact on me? Unless you intend on FORCING Jews to be outcasts (I'm not quite sure how you'd manage that, btw), I don't see the point of you "informing" folks about these lovely tidbits. Unless it's just for trivia's sake.

God cursed them to be outcasts at the beginning of time.

Uh huh. So that whole "chosen people", "Go forth Abraham" thing was what, a fluke? Does God reverse himself often in your cosmology?

And? Why should I care about your theology? How does this have any impact on me? Unless you intend on FORCING Jews to be outcasts (I'm not quite sure how you'd manage that, btw), I don't see the point of you "informing" folks about these lovely tidbits. Unless it's just for trivia's sake.
The Church has kept this issue resolved for thousands of years and will not fail today.



Uh huh. So that whole "chosen people", "Go forth Abraham" thing was what, a fluke? Does God reverse himself often in your cosmology?
The once chosen people are now the accursed race, being the traitors to Father, murdering His son upon the Cross.

et ait Dominus ad Cain ubi est Abel frater tuus qui respondit nescio num custos fratris mei sum dixitque ad eum quid fecisti vox sanguinis fratris tui clamat ad me de terra nunc igitur maledictus eris super terram quae aperuit os suum et suscepit sanguinem fratris tui de manu tua cum operatus fueris eam non dabit tibi fructus suos vagus et profugus eris super terram dixitque Cain ad Dominum maior est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear ecce eicis me hodie a facie terrae et a facie tua abscondar et ero vagus et profugus in terra omnis igitur qui invenerit me occidet me dixitque ei Dominus nequaquam ita fiet sed omnis qui occiderit Cain septuplum punietur posuitque Dominus Cain signum ut non eum interficeret omnis qui invenisset eum
(Liber Genesis ivIX-XV)

'Tis the Church teaching...

Folks, he's either a lamer (is that the right term, I get confused) or has some psychotic disorder. My suggestion is use of the ignore cannon.

The Church has kept this issue resolved for thousands of years and will not fail today.

Hmm. Interesting. Exactly what does that MEAN?

The once chosen people are now the accursed race, being the traitors to Father, murdering His son upon the Cross.

So, in other words, you're acknowledging that you were full of shit when you said:

God cursed them to be outcasts at the beginning of time.??

et ait Dominus ad Cain ubi est Abel frater tuus qui respondit nescio num custos fratris mei sum dixitque ad eum quid fecisti vox sanguinis fratris tui clamat ad me de terra nunc igitur maledictus eris super terram quae aperuit os suum et suscepit sanguinem fratris tui de manu tua cum operatus fueris eam non dabit tibi fructus suos vagus et profugus eris super terram dixitque Cain ad Dominum maior est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear ecce eicis me hodie a facie terrae et a facie tua abscondar et ero vagus et profugus in terra omnis igitur qui invenerit me occidet me dixitque ei Dominus nequaquam ita fiet sed omnis qui occiderit Cain septuplum punietur posuitque Dominus Cain signum ut non eum interficeret omnis qui invenisset eum
(Liber Genesis ivIX-XV)

Wonderful... Now we fall back on the age old tactic of Catholics... Use a language others can't understand to try and bullshit your way out of a logical quandry.

Hmm. Interesting. Exactly what does that MEAN?
The Church has always kept the Jews and their usury in check.

So, in other words, you're acknowledging that you were full of shit when you said:

No, as I stated through Scripture. The Jews bear the curse and the mark of Cain.

The once chosen people are now the accursed race, being the traitors to Father, murdering His son upon the Cross.

Are you aware of the difference between "the beginning of time" and "Christ's death"?

Are you aware of the difference between "the beginning of time" and "Christ's death"?
Cain's murderous act was indeed at the beginning of time, and would be fulfilled again at Calvary.

Cain's murderous act was indeed at the beginning of time, and would be fulfilled again at Calvary.

Cain was not Jewish. In fact, there was no such thing.

The Church has always kept the Jews and their usury in check.

Usury is a foundation of modern capitalism. Interest charges enable banks to accumulate money and expand the availability of loans, leading to more commercial activity. One reason that Northern Europe, especially Calvinist-influenced Netherlands, England, and north German, were far richer than Catholic southern Europe is that while the Catholic Church banned usury and stifled economic growth, the reformer John Calvin encouraged usury. Calvinist areas of Europe including Huguenots in France were the leading financial and industrial centers of the world due to their highly modernized and efficient trade and banking practices.

In fact, there was no such thing.
From the atheistic Jewish perspective perhaps...

Cain was not Jewish. In fact, there was no such thing.
*laughin' her ass off*

Sorry; I have nothing to contribute. ;-)

Usury is a foundation of modern capitalism. Interest charges enable banks to accumulate money and expand the availability of loans, leading to more commercial activity. One reason that Northern Europe, especially Calvinist-influenced Netherlands, England, and north German, were far richer than Catholic southern Europe is that while the Catholic Church banned usury and stifled economic growth, the reformer John Calvin encouraged usury. Calvinist areas of Europe including Huguenots in France were the leading financial and industrial centers of the world due to their highly modernized and efficient trade and banking practices.
Usury is prohibited by Christianity.
The Jew John Cauvin has wrecked far more havoc than any other "reformers."

Cain's murderous act was indeed at the beginning of time, and would be fulfilled again at Calvary.
That's interesting!! because Saturn's act of violent casteration was also the beginning of time. Does it always take an act of violence for the concept of time to be comprehensible?

Usury is prohibited by Christianity.
I don't believe in God and I don't read Christian theology so I won't quibble with you about the Bible which I believe to be largely fiction.

The Jew John Cauvin has wrecked far more havoc than any other "reformers."
True, Calvin has wreaked havoc on your Catholic Church. He proved the usefulness of usury, and exposed the backwardness of Catholic Europe.

True, Calvin has wreaked havoc on your Catholic Church. He proved the usefulness of usury, and exposed the backwardness of Catholic Europe.
Cauvin was a Jew and the Jewish god is money. Cauvin saw shekels in the poor yet proud and devout Christian Europeans. The greed and disgust from Jewish usury is backward, not useful.

From the atheistic Jewish perspective perhaps...

Would you care to explain how Cain could be Jewish before there were ever any Jews?

Cauvin was a Jew and the Jewish god is money. Cauvin saw shekels in the poor yet proud and devout Christian Europeans. The greed and disgust from Jewish usury is backward, not useful.
Calvin himself slept on a board and dressed as a poverty stricken fanatic. He was not extravagant and devoted all his time, energy, and money, to propagating his religion. Calvin's ideas however did help Christian north Europe to dominate the world economy. Usury was widespread in the Netherlands, which became the leading banking power and colonial nation during the 17th century. Far from holding back Europe, Calvinist usury allowed modern efficient economic systems to replace useless narrowminded taboos. That is why Christian Europe, in particular the Rhineland, Netherlands, Hugenots in France, and England, were the most prosperous people in the world.

Would you care to explain how Cain could be Jewish before there were ever any Jews?
It's loyalty! don't you get it?

The Jews were loyal to the sons of Abraham.

Jesus was a Jew. Race? I don't know. Doesn't matter to me. If I feel that there is an important message in something, I will follow that whether the person is black white hispanic asian or whatever, as long as I feel the teachings are worth following.

It's loyalty! don't you get it?

The Jews were loyal to the sons of Abraham.

But Cain was not a son of Abraham.... =)

If Cain was a Jew, then so were Adam and Eve, and thus so is every single human being on the planet.

The Church has always kept the Jews and their usury in check.

I'll keep that in mind if I see any usuers.

No, as I stated through Scripture. The Jews bear the curse and the mark of Cain.

Uh huh. Although Abraham, the first "Jew" was around 14 generations after Cain. Nice "math" there. Perhaps you should ask a Jew to help you with this.

From the atheistic Jewish perspective perhaps...

If by "atheistic Jewish perspective", you mean, "Bible". Cain was born long BEFORE Abraham, the first "proto-Jew". Unless someone had a semitic time machine, I don't see how your "argument" could possibly work.

If by "atheistic Jewish perspective", you mean, "Bible". Cain was born long BEFORE Abraham, the first "proto-Jew". Unless someone had a semitic time machine, I don't see how your "argument" could possibly work.

Obviously, in the anti-semitic, neo-Nazi world that Servus lives in, anyone who he doesn't like is a "Jew".

If by "atheistic Jewish perspective", you mean, "Bible". Cain was born long BEFORE Abraham, the first "proto-Jew". Unless someone had a semitic time machine, I don't see how your "argument" could possibly work.
owned.

Cauvin was a Jew

Prove it.

and the Jewish god is money.

Prove it.

Cauvin saw shekels in the poor yet proud and devout Christian Europeans.

Source?

The greed and disgust from Jewish usury is backward, not useful.

How so? By what standards do you measure "backwardness"?

"and the Jewish god is money."
- Servus Dei

holy freaking crap can you say biased. look, living in the anti-semitic world you do, realize that generalizing jews as cheap isnt going to improve your standing among any of us. all i can say is that you are making a horrible horrible generalzation that in despite of the fact that it may be true in some, maybe even most cases, doesnt rationalize its statement. I know several jewish people. they are good people, and they respect my vies and i respect theirs. they are in no ways cheap or "worshippers of money". just by saying that you revoke your position as an advocate of god (not that you had it in the first place), you just indirectly but clearly staed that you hate jews, you have done nothing but attack them this entire time, surely god has not forsaken his chosen people. no where in the bible does it say that god gave up on the jews. regardless of your jealousy, there is no way you can really deny this.
next, jesus never said he's build his chirch upon st. peter. if i may quote matthew, "and jesus said unto them, who say thou that i am? and simon peter answered and said thou art the christ , the son of the living god. and jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou simon bar-jona, for flexh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my father which is in heaven. and upon this rick i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall nto prevail against it." now jesus didnt say he's build his chirch upon peter, he meant he would build it upon faith, believing without seeing. he needs his church to be built upon revelation, not absent minded following of a preist teachings and discouragment to study teh bible. so, that being siad, i'd jsut like to clarify my religous position for you all to start attacking me, i am a latter-day saint, a mormon if you will. i do not worship morma, only god, jesus christ and the holy ghost, so carry on fellows

Why are all the religion threads on christianity or judaism? Why not islam or whatnot, this is boring :(

Why are all the religion threads on christianity or judaism? Why not islam or whatnot, this is boring :(

Are there actually threads on Judaism? None that I've seen lately.

Are there actually threads on Judaism? None that I've seen lately.Judaism is boring.

And I can't believe you're all actually replying to Servus Dei. Stop feeding the trolls.

Nowhere in the bible does he state that he has abandoned Judaism. Nowhere in the bible does he say he's the messiah. He was a Jew. Or maybe a Wiccan, I'm not sure.

Maybe you need to read the bible or quit inhaling weed. One or the other is fine.

And catholics AREN'T Christians, they do worship idols (statues of Mary), they have added a number of books to the Bible (when there is a direct warning in the last few sentences of the Bible), and they do a number of other non-christian things. Catholocism is a crisis in faith.

I don't think you can tell someone what they do or don't believe in. I a Catholic believes that Jesus Christ is, well, the Christ, then s/he is Christian, and that warning in the Bible is refering to the Book of Revelations, not to the Bible as a whole. The bible wasn't even assembled until long after St. John wrote that warning, and he himself along with many others in the bible wrote stuff that's included therein.
I do think you're right about the idol thing....Catholics really do create a big deal over statues, whether they 'worship' them or not isn't really anyone's call but their own, but those traditions definitely decended from pagans.

"and the Jewish god is money."
- Servus Dei

holy freaking crap can you say biased. look, living in the anti-semitic world you do, realize that generalizing jews as cheap isnt going to improve your standing among any of us. all i can say is that you are making a horrible horrible generalzation that in despite of the fact that it may be true in some, maybe even most cases, doesnt rationalize its statement. I know several jewish people. they are good people, and they respect my vies and i respect theirs. they are in no ways cheap or "worshippers of money". just by saying that you revoke your position as an advocate of god (not that you had it in the first place), you just indirectly but clearly staed that you hate jews, you have done nothing but attack them this entire time, surely god has not forsaken his chosen people. no where in the bible does it say that god gave up on the jews. regardless of your jealousy, there is no way you can really deny this.
next, jesus never said he's build his chirch upon st. peter. if i may quote matthew, "and jesus said unto them, who say thou that i am? and simon peter answered and said thou art the christ , the son of the living god. and jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou simon bar-jona, for flexh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my father which is in heaven. and upon this rick i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall nto prevail against it." now jesus didnt say he's build his chirch upon peter, he meant he would build it upon faith, believing without seeing. he needs his church to be built upon revelation, not absent minded following of a preist teachings and discouragment to study teh bible. so, that being siad, i'd jsut like to clarify my religous position for you all to start attacking me, i am a latter-day saint, a mormon if you will. i do not worship morma, only god, jesus christ and the holy ghost, so carry on fellows


Bravo. Bravo.

I don't think you can tell someone what they do or don't believe in. I a Catholic believes that Jesus Christ is, well, the Christ, then s/he is Christian, and that warning in the Bible is refering to the Book of Revelations, not to the Bible as a whole. The bible wasn't even assembled until long after St. John wrote that warning, and he himself along with many others in the bible wrote stuff that's included therein.
I do think you're right about the idol thing....Catholics really do create a big deal over statues, whether they 'worship' them or not isn't really anyone's call but their own, but those traditions definitely decended from pagans.


Somehow this whole chain of discussion reminds me of one of my dearest friends said to defend Catholicism in a class we took together--and I in no way mean this insultingly, or as anything more than humorous (just like she did).

"Darling, who do you think invented Jesus?"

I’ve already sensed a little spark taken place over this debate (Jesus, who was he, what's his race, etc.). It has already caused a friction between Christianity and Judaism; I wonder what's next? Hmm..... Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheism. I suggest this debate should be ended before ignorance takes control.

Does it matter what race Jesus was? Really? I mean, I doubt his message would be any different if he was Asian or African...

"and the Jewish god is money."
- Servus Dei

holy freaking crap can you say biased. look, living in the anti-semitic world you do, realize that generalizing jews as cheap isnt going to improve your standing among any of us. all i can say is that you are making a horrible horrible generalzation that in despite of the fact that it may be true in some, maybe even most cases, doesnt rationalize its statement. I know several jewish people. they are good people, and they respect my vies and i respect theirs. they are in no ways cheap or "worshippers of money". just by saying that you revoke your position as an advocate of god (not that you had it in the first place), you just indirectly but clearly staed that you hate jews, you have done nothing but attack them this entire time, surely god has not forsaken his chosen people. no where in the bible does it say that god gave up on the jews. regardless of your jealousy, there is no way you can really deny this.
next, jesus never said he's build his chirch upon st. peter. if i may quote matthew, "and jesus said unto them, who say thou that i am? and simon peter answered and said thou art the christ , the son of the living god. and jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou simon bar-jona, for flexh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my father which is in heaven. and upon this rick i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall nto prevail against it." now jesus didnt say he's build his chirch upon peter, he meant he would build it upon faith, believing without seeing. he needs his church to be built upon revelation, not absent minded following of a preist teachings and discouragment to study teh bible. so, that being siad, i'd jsut like to clarify my religous position for you all to start attacking me, i am a latter-day saint, a mormon if you will. i do not worship morma, only god, jesus christ and the holy ghost, so carry on fellows


I) You made a distorted translation of the Bible. Christ builds His Church upon the Rock of St. Peter.

II) You just admitted that Jews are cheap, considering I never made that claim.

III) The Jews are not the chosen people but the accursed race.

IV) Mormonism is no better than Mohammedanism.

@Servus Dei:
I guess that a certain mustache bearer must be a real hero for you.

What race was Jesus, and what religion was Jesus? Don't be too hasty now.

jesus was Isralie and was a jew

I) You made a distorted translation of the Bible. Christ builds His Church upon the Rock of St. Peter.

I don't really know what you care, since most of what you spout has never been approved by the Catholic Church.

Somehow this whole chain of discussion reminds me of one of my dearest friends said to defend Catholicism in a class we took together--and I in no way mean this insultingly, or as anything more than humorous (just like she did).

"Darling, who do you think invented Jesus?"

Jesus was not invented.

Different ideas of who He was could have been invented.

What's your point?

I had a hard time understanding your post. I'm still not sure I understood....

Jesus was a big mack daddy of a pimp, walking up and down ancient Israel controlling his Jewish "hoes" and wearing his "simplistic but still HOT" robes.
Despite other reports, Pontius "Poon-Daddy" Pilate was a rival pimp who didn't like this upstart taking his business. So he and his "Bloods" (they wore red, after all) did a drive by on Jesus and stuck him up on a cross to make it look like he was an actual enemy of the state.

At least, that's what I've come to believe. Because the Bible can't be right, can it?

:p

Jesus was not invented.

Different ideas of who He was could have been invented.

What's your point?

I had a hard time understanding your post. I'm still not sure I understood....



As I said in my original post, it was a joke. She was making the point that Catholicism came before all the other Christian denominations. It's not a big deal, really.

I have only got down to pg 8, but felt that i had to make this point, before finishing the other 11.

It is very clear to me that Servus Dei is Catholic, and his name is a pun on Opus Dei (incidentally, Servus Dei would translate as "slave of God" not "Servant of God" as I think you meant). However Mr Dei, your anti-semitism is rather at odds with the Catholic Church in view of the decree they issued in 1965 declaring that all Jews were NOT to blame for the death of Jesus.

I'll go back to my reading now. :cool:

Jesus and all his 12 followers were Jews and followed Judaism. They prayed 3 times a day and wore prayer shawls and wore tefllin in their Morning Prayers. Jesus was a Rabbi by the age of 13 which is very remarkable and shows he was indeed very special. Normally at 13 a Jewish boy is only getting Bar Mitvahed but he was already teaching. Rabbi in english means "Teacher". Jesus was always a follower of Judaism but wanted it to also include non-jews as well and that is were his teaching come from.

I have only got down to pg 8, but felt that i had to make this point, before finishing the other 11.

It is very clear to me that Servus Dei is Catholic, and his name is a pun on Opus Dei (incidentally, Servus Dei would translate as "slave of God" not "Servant of God" as I think you meant). However Mr Dei, your anti-semitism is rather at odds with the Catholic Church in view of the decree they issued in 1965 declaring that all Jews were NOT to blame for the death of Jesus.

I'll go back to my reading now. :cool:

I) No, my name is not a pun on anything.

II) No, it actually is intended to translate as Servant of God.

III) The Catholic Church does not change dogmas. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED.

"The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world."
--Origen

From the vatican website, ie, a decree of the most holy Catholic Church:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

An interesting bit regarding Jews from it:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.


Written by the Pope, the Holy father of the one Catholic church. All Jews are NOT to blame.

Regarding your other points:

1. I apologise for assuming you had chosen your name thoughtfully. I will bear this in mind.

2. The concept of a servant ie, a slave you paid and were nice to, did not exist among the Romans. The words servus means slave, and not servant.

From the vatican website, ie, a decree of the most holy Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
An interesting bit regarding Jews from it:
Written by the Pope, the Holy father of the one Catholic church. All Jews are NOT to blame.

All Jews are held accountable by the Church, as they always have been, what you quoted was heresy. (And yes, he can commit heresy...)

Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.
--St. Augustine of Hippo

Jesus was a Rabbi by the age of 13 which is very remarkable and shows he was indeed very special.

What? Rubbish. Where does it say that in the Bible? It says that he was astounding the people with his knowledge of the Torah. This does not mean he was a Rabbi. It means he was learning about the Torah in preparation for his bar Mitzvah, and knew more than your average thirteeen year old.

Just because your children happen to know who Jesus is, does that make them priests?

Regarding your other points:

1. I apologise for assuming you had chosen your name thoughtfully. I will bear this in mind.

2. The concept of a servant ie, a slave you paid and were nice to, did not exist among the Romans. The words servus means slave, and not servant.
I) Opus Dei would be a different name. Going by your logic, perhaps your name was not chosen thoughtfully because it is not Dave the Heretic . :rolleyes:

II) Who is quoting Romans here?

It means servant in this case, as I stated earlier.

All Jews are held accountable by the Church, as they always have been, what you quoted was heresy. (And yes, he can commit heresy...)

So you are quite obviously the voice of the one true Catholic church.

What? Rubbish. Where does it say that in the Bible? It says that he was astounding the people with his knowledge of the Torah. This does not mean he was a Rabbi. It means he was learning about the Torah in preparation for his bar Mitzvah, and knew more than your average thirteeen year old.

Just because your children happen to know who Jesus is, does that make them priests?

He was referred to as rabbi numerous times, simply out of the peoples' association of Him as a Teacher. A teacher is all that a rabbi in the Talmudic Jewish religion is, not to be equated with a priest.

So you are quite obviously the voice of the one true Catholic church.
No; Popes, Saints, Apostles, Scripture, Tradition, etc....

So, the Vatican is promoting heresy? That's a new one.

As you may know, or not, the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching untrue doctrine. Even the most evil and misguided Popes taught true doctrine in their capacity of Pope. Paul VII says the Jews are not to blame, the Holy Spirit prevents him from preaching false doctrine, therefore the Jews are not to blame. Pope John Paul II also preaches the same thing and has held numerous audiences with rabbis and other Jewish figures. He is not preaching false doctrine either, therefore the Jews are not to blame. The people you quote are NOt prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching True doctrine, therefore you are wrong.

I) It means servant in this case, as I stated earlier.

maybe it does to you in a figurative sense, but the actual translation is slave. The meaning that servant carries would simply be unknown in Roman society, and therefore their language.

He was referred to as rabbi numerous times, simply out of the peoples' association of Him as a Teacher. A teacher is all that a rabbi in the Talmudic Jewish religion is, not to be equated with a priest.

I'm not disputing that he WAS a Rabbi, just that he was not one aged thirteen. There is rather a large gap in scripture from being a thirteen year old boy to being a thirty year old rabbi.

So, the Vatican is promoting heresy? That's a new one.

As you may know, or not, the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching untrue doctrine. Even the most evil and misguided Popes taught true doctrine in their capacity of Pope. Paul VII says the Jews are not to blame, the Holy Spirit prevents him from preaching false doctrine, therefore the Jews are not to blame. Pope John Paul II also preaches the same thing and has held numerous audiences with rabbis and other Jewish figures. He is not preaching false doctrine either, therefore the Jews are not to blame. The people you quote are NOt prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching True doctrine, therefore you are wrong.
they are only infallible when speaking on doctrine (which was altered years ago as it was) can you say pick and choose scripture

So, the Vatican is promoting heresy? That's a new one.

As you may know, or not, the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching untrue doctrine. Even the most evil and misguided Popes taught true doctrine in their capacity of Pope. Paul VII says the Jews are not to blame, the Holy Spirit prevents him from preaching false doctrine, therefore the Jews are not to blame. Pope John Paul II also preaches the same thing and has held numerous audiences with rabbis and other Jewish figures. He is not preaching false doctrine either, therefore the Jews are not to blame. The people you quote are NOt prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching True doctrine, therefore you are wrong.

I) No, a pope not always infallible, especially when part of a liberalist pastoral, and non-dogmatic, hijacked council of Freemasons.

II) There is no Pope Paul VII.

III) John Paul II has committed many heresies. There is actually a record of 101 of his words and actions compared with the Catholic Church's teaching.

101 Heresies of John Paul II (http://holywar.org/101heres.htm)

IV) If you saying that some 20th century liberalist pope is superior in theology to the Sainted Church Fathers (even Saint Augustine!), then you are seriously deluded. There is good chance there would be no Christianity today without St. Augustine or the Church Fathers, or the Saints.

V) But if you need a Pope's word on the issue, then...

"Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear."
--Pope Gregory IX

maybe it does to you in a figurative sense, but the actual translation is slave. The meaning that servant carries would simply be unknown in Roman society, and therefore their language.
Is this Roman society, Dave?

Is this Roman society, Dave?

No.

Is Latin our language?


I apologise however, I added an extra i. I meant Pope Paul VI.
And as the Pope is chosen under the eye of G-d, I find it highly unlikely that he would allow a heretic upon the papal throne. Or are you saying that Christ cannot organise His own church?

Well Jesus was from Nazareth so he was technically Jewish, Apperantly, BUT..(Emphasis on BUT) the only religion was Hebrew; at the time, so we was not religious per se, he was sort of like a communist, one other reason why the romans cruxified the man. :fluffle:

And the site you have provided proves my point. A Pope may speak total rubbish at times, but cannot preach false doctrine. There is nothing on there that he proclaimed as doctrine, just his view on the world.

No; Popes, Saints, Apostles, Scripture, Tradition, etc....

Yet the Pope committed heresy by saying not all Jews are guilty of murdering Jesus?

No, the Blood of Christ is upon the Jews until the end of time.
1. Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of corrupt Jewish priests.
2. That in no way implicates all Jews in Christ's death.
3. Jews are the Chosen People of God.
4. Christians have a duty to defend Jews.
5. What the hell is wrong with you?

I thought that Jesus preached love and tolerance but after reading this thread, it seems that I was wrong. :rolleyes:

They were not corrupt. They were hard working pious Jews who didn't like a heretic calling them generations of vipers, so they told the Romans , who had him executed.

If Jesu had not been crucified, you would have no atonement. You OWE the Jews.

1. Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of corrupt Jewish priests.
2. That in no way implicates all Jews in Christ's death.
3. Jews are the Chosen People of God.
4. Christians have a duty to defend Jews.
5. What the hell is wrong with you?
"Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them."
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea

was Thomas Aquinas a Pope? Was he imbued with the power from Christ to preach true doctrine?

No.

As I said in my original post, it was a joke. She was making the point that Catholicism came before all the other Christian denominations. It's not a big deal, really.

I understand it's a joke, but just to clarify, Catholosism is supposedly the first Christian religion, that is AFTER Christ's original. Catholosism isn't neccesarily the religion that Jesus started, even though it is (even this is disputable) the first "Christian" religion. The way I see it, if Christ was the Messiah, then the prophecies in ancient Israel are refering to Him. It arguable that infact the Children of Israel were the first Christian denomination.
I know you were just joking.....don't want to sound harsh or anything, just clarifying my view. :)

"Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them."
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea


Oh I get it, so if I wash my hands of my culpability before I murder someone, then its not my fault--just a long as I get a race of people to agree to be scapegoats.

"Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them."
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea
Sounds like Tommy dropped the ball on that one. ;)

I understand it's a joke, but just to clarify, Catholosism is supposedly the first Christian religion, that is AFTER Christ's original. Catholosism isn't neccesarily the religion that Jesus started, even though it is (even this is disputable) the first "Christian" religion. The way I see it, if Christ was the Messiah, then the prophecies in ancient Israel are refering to Him. It arguable that infact the Children of Israel were the first Christian denomination.
I know you were just joking.....don't want to sound harsh or anything, just clarifying my view. :)


I say to each their own with their own view. Personally, I'm not really a Christian anymore. I'm probably closer to an anti-theist than anything. . . or a universalist if you prefer. I think Jesus lived once (as did many others who were great teachers--Buddha, Mohommed, Martin Luther King, Gandhi) and taught great things about caring for your fellow man and simply doing good. Beyond that, I believe everyone has responsibility for their own lives and what they live.

Live and let live.

All Jews are held accountable by the Church, as they always have been

I'm still unclear on why I should care, though...

O CHILDREN OF MEN!
Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

Jews are the Chosen People of God.
spare me your Bullshit. :mad:

Jesus was the son of God, and he was a jew THE DISIPLES TOLD EVERYONE ABOUT CHRISTIANTY IDIOTS!

III) The Catholic Church does not change dogmas. Evolution of dogmas is CONDEMNED.

I guess every Catholic is going to hell then, since the dogma has been evolving since 33 AD.

IV) If you saying that some 20th century liberalist pope is superior in theology to the Sainted Church Fathers (even Saint Augustine!),

Yeah, cuz babies sin when they cry for food.

I understand it's a joke, but just to clarify, Catholosism is supposedly the first Christian religion, that is AFTER Christ's original. Catholosism isn't neccesarily the religion that Jesus started, even though it is (even this is disputable) the first "Christian" religion. The way I see it, if Christ was the Messiah, then the prophecies in ancient Israel are refering to Him. It arguable that infact the Children of Israel were the first Christian denomination.
I know you were just joking.....don't want to sound harsh or anything, just clarifying my view. :)

In truth, Catholicism wasn't really the first Christian religion either - it is just the one that won out in the end. There were dozens of factions that sprung up, right from the very beginning.

Nearly all of them technically had apostolic succussion.

Whenever i see that "White Jesus""White mary" Icons i laugh. Christianity was created afer Jesus Died. The Apostosle's (i can't spell) were the one's who created the religion. I think he would have been pretty self righteous if he named it after himself (i.e. Jesus Christ = Christianity). So to answer your question, Jesus was from the area now know as Isreal ('cause it wasn't Isreal when he lived there) and he was Jewish. At least this is a sort of logical explanation. :)

I think he would have been pretty self righteous if he named it after himself (i.e. Jesus Christ = Christianity).

ok, except for that Christ is not Jesus' last name. Christ is a title refering to His divine calling as the Messiah. So I guess either He, his Apostles, or perhaps even his followers were the first to call it Christianity. It doesn't really matter who started calling it that though. It's not called Jesus-ben-Joseph-ianity or Jesus-of-Nazareth-ianity. It's called Christianity because it is based on the Atonement of the Christ, who is Jesus. He knew of his divine calling, so maybe He was the first to name it. (When He asked the apostles, 'whom say ye that I am?' Peter said, 'thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God').

spare me your Bullshit. :mad:
You are a holy people unto the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

Care to apologize? ;)

Come on Mr Dei, finish what you started.

Whenever i see that "White Jesus""White mary" Icons i laugh. Christianity was created afer Jesus Died. The Apostosle's (i can't spell) were the one's who created the religion. I think he would have been pretty self righteous if he named it after himself (i.e. Jesus Christ = Christianity). So to answer your question, Jesus was from the area now know as Isreal ('cause it wasn't Isreal when he lived there) and he was Jewish. At least this is a sort of logical explanation. :)

Unquestionably, Jesus was English.

" and did those feeeeeeeet, in ancient tiiiiiimessss...."

Which is why the Anglican Churches, are the one true faith. Despite the apostasy of the current Prince Bishops.

Yeah, cuz babies sin when they cry for food.

Don't forget pears. Sinful, sinful, pears.

Which is why the Anglican Churches, are the one true faith. Despite the apostasy of the current Prince Bishops.
you silly old man :fluffle: