The Metamorphose of Apollos

[Randy_Carson]

That’s exactly how it looks like. Besides, Mark and Luke were not disciples of Jesus. They never even saw Jesus if I am to remind you.

Heh. Yeah, thanks for that.

Perhaps you are unaware that Mark was an associate of Peter while Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Though they may not have met Jesus personally (Mark may have), they had access to the Apostles and wrote their gospels based upon what they learned from eye-witnesses.

I think you don’t know the ABC’s about Judaism.

A human being born of God with a woman! Are you crazy? There was never an Olympian Pantheon in Israel. Regarding that dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, anything beyond verse 24 of John 4 is a later interpolation to enhance the Pauline idea that Jesus was the Messiah. If Jesus had ever claimed to be the Messiah, the Apostles would have preached about it in Jerusalem. They didn’t because when Paul showed up with his gospel he was nearly killed for preaching heresy.Empty assertions which you cannot prove.

No, he did not. I have proved to you already even in this very post. Why are you so stiff necked?

Your denial of the text means nothing. The Bible is a historically accurate text, and we know it to be reliable. Therefore, we can know that Jesus declared Himself to be once with the Father.

The Jews understood His claim and threatened to stone him but they could not.

What an active imagination you have.

 

[adrift]

The intellectual dishonesty here is astounding. Can you point to anyone here who has attempted to excuse the mass murder of 6 million Jews? In essence what you are claiming is that other people are minimizing the horrors of the holocaust without any proof to back that up.

Then, to top things off, you immediately launch into how you are no longer going to discuss the topic that you introduced after laying down a salvo. Nice bit of hit and run.

There is a persistent pattern of faulty eisegisis here where you read into Scripture, history and posts whatever suits your anti-Catholic theories.

Eric

You have stated the truth well. In addition, he is trying to minimize the death of others. It didn’t really matter what religion the person who was killed by Hitler and his company was nor should it. Each death diminished us. It is not an excuse to say others were killed. It is an acknowledgment that each life counted. To say that one life is worth more than another diminishes both. To succumb to this thinking denies not only what happened to the Jews but makes it possible for it to happen again.

 

[NotWorthy]

In the hopes of drawing Ben back to this thread (it seems he’s pre-occupied with another), can we get off this asinine discussion about Ben’s imagined plight with several Jewish persecutions?

It’s got nothing to do with Apollos!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I could claim that the Vatican cared more for our brother Jews, than the Jews themselves, since the Vatican made more efforts during WWII to protect the Jews from the Nazis than the Jews did.

I’d be about equally as correct as you are here with many of the statements that you’ve made on this subject. Its getting old, Ben.

**I know NotWorthy, we all can claim a lot after a lot that happened when nothing can be done anymore. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

No, Ben. I don’t understand your plight and I never will. Were you killed in the Crusades? Were you killed in the Inquisition? I don’t think so, unless maybe you’re related to Shirley McClaine!

Ben, I don’t understand your plight because I’d be a liar if I said I did. I’m not Jewish and I never will be. For that I do not apologize.

Do you wish to start up a different thread for those subjects? Go ahead. I won’t participate because I could care less about the misguided lies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications about something that happened 100’s of years ago.

I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but can we please get back to the topic!!! What does the imagined plight of Ben have to do with Apollos?!?

Do you happen to know who organized the Fourth Crusade? Pope Innocence III. Why don’t you take a glance in the excesses of that Crusade? I am sure you have a ready reply on the tip of your tongue to tell me that the Pope did not do the actual killing. What difference does it make anyways? I mean, either you believe it or not?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, wonder no more. It’s because there was no silence and claims like that are only made by those predisposed to despise the Catholic Church.

If (by some small chance) you are actually interested in the truth, why not listen to what the people most involved in the situation had to say?

From prominent Jews at the time:

As early as December 1940, in an article in Time magazine, Albert Einstein paid tribute to Pius: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.”

In 1943, Chaim Weizmann, who would become Israel’s first president, wrote that “the Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the fate of my persecuted co-religionists.”

Moshe Sharett, Israel’s second prime minister, met with Pius in the closing days of the war and “told him that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews.”

Rabbi Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Israel, sent a message in February 1944 declaring, “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”

In September 1945, Leon Kubowitzky, Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress, personally thanked the Pope for his interventions, and the World Jewish Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities “in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions.”
Goodness and magnanimity

In 1955, when Italy celebrated the tenth anniversary of its liberation, the Union of Italian Jewish Communities proclaimed April 17 a “Day of Gratitude” for the Pope’s wartime assistance. …

To deny the legitimacy of their gratitude to Pius XII is tantamount to denying the credibility of their personal testimony and judgment about the Holocaust itself. “More than all others,” recalled Elio Toaff, an Italian Jew who lived through the Holocaust and later became Chief Rabbi of Rome, “we had the opportunity of experiencing the great compassionate goodness and magnanimity of the Pope during the unhappy years of the persecution and terror, when it seemed that for us there was no longer an escape.”…

If you are still having trouble, let me know and I’ll provide some info on the flip side of the coin. Some opinions from the other group most involved, the Nazis. They vilified the Pope, had documented assassination plans in place and decried him as the ‘Jew loving Pope’.

I don’t hold out much hope, as it is clear that you are not looking for facts here.

Eric

My eyes are overwhelmed by six million, and I don’t thing there were many more than that number in the whole of Europe. How many for Heaven’s sake were saved by the Church?

 

[patrick457]

My eyes are overwhelmed by six million, and I don’t thing there were many more than that number in the whole of Europe. How many for Heaven’s sake were saved by the Church?

Some estimate that somewhere around 700,000 to 860,000 European Jews were saved directly or indirectly through the efforts of Pius XII - the number is more than all the international agencies put together.

Still a far cry from the estimated six million Jews who died along with other ethnic, religious, or social groups, yes. But if the Catholic Church, or for that matter, anyone, did not take any course of action, the 860,000 Jews saved through the Church’s intervention and others saved by people of different denominations or religions would not have survived and lived to tell their tale and the body count would have been higher. That would have been more worse.

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you happen to know who organized the Fourth Crusade? Pope Innocence III. Why don’t you take a glance in the excesses of that Crusade? I am sure you have a ready reply on the tip of your tongue to tell me that the Pope did not do the actual killing. What difference does it make anyways? I mean, either you believe it or not?

Ben, welcome back!!!

To this point, if Pope Innocence started the Crusade and said, “Slay all the innocent Jews!” and what-not, then you may have a point. How did the Pope react to the atrocities. You’ve obviously done extensive research on this subject. You should know, my friend.

 

[patrick457]

Do you happen to know who organized the Fourth Crusade? Pope Innocence III. Why don’t you take a glance in the excesses of that Crusade? I am sure you have a ready reply on the tip of your tongue to tell me that the Pope did not do the actual killing. What difference does it make anyways? I mean, either you believe it or not?

Not just the tip of the tongue; but the throat and the guts and innards as well. Now let’s review.

The Fourth Crusade (1199–1204) was originally designed to conquer Muslim Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt.

After the failure of the Third Crusade (1189–1192), there was little interest in Europe for another crusade against the Muslims. Jerusalem had now become controlled by the Ayyubids, which ruled all of Syria and Egypt, except for the few cities along the coast still controlled by the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, now centered on Acre. The Third Crusade had also established a kingdom on Cyprus.

Innocent III ‘ascended the throne of Peter’ in January of 1198, and the preaching of a new crusade became the goal of his pontificate. His call was largely ignored by the Kings of Europe: the Germans were struggling against Papal power, and England and France were still busy fighting against each other.

However, due to the influence of the French preacher Fulk of Neuilly, a crusading army was finally organized at a tournament held at Écry by Count Thibaut of Champagne in 1199. Thibaut was elected leader, but he died in 1200 and was replaced by an Italian count, Boniface of Montferrat. Boniface and the other leaders sent envoys to Venice, Genoa, and other city-states to negotiate a contract for transport to Egypt, the object of their crusade. Genoa was uninterested, but in March 1201 negotiations were opened with Venice, which agreed to transport 33,500 crusaders. This agreement required a full year of preparation on the part of the Venetians to build numerous ships and train the sailors who would man them, all the while curtailing the city’s commercial activities. The crusading army was expected to comprise 4,500 knights (as well as 4,500 horses), 9,000 squires, and 20,000 foot-soldiers.

The majority of the crusading army that set out from Venice in October 1202 originated from areas within France. It included men from Blois, Champagne, Amiens, Saint-Pol, the Ile-de-France and Burgundy. Several other regions of Europe sent substantial contingents as well, such as Flanders and Montferrat. Other notable groups came from the Holy Roman Empire, including the men under Bishop Martin of Pairis and Bishop Conrad of Halberstadt, together in alliance with the Venetian soldiers and sailors led by the doge Enrico Dandolo. The crusade was to make directly for the centre of the Muslim world, Cairo, ready to sail on June 24, 1202. This agreement was ratified by Pope Innocent, with a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states.

Of course, due to some turn of events, in April 1204, the Crusaders ended up invading and conquering the city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire instead, betraying their original purpose of going to Egypt to attack the Ayyubids in order to get Jerusalem back.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not just the tip of the tongue; but the throat and the guts and innards as well. Now let’s review.

The Fourth Crusade (1199–1204) was originally designed to conquer Muslim Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt.

After the failure of the Third Crusade (1189–1192), there was little interest in Europe for another crusade against the Muslims. Jerusalem had now become controlled by the Ayyubids, which ruled all of Syria and Egypt, except for the few cities along the coast still controlled by the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, now centered on Acre. The Third Crusade had also established a kingdom on Cyprus.

Innocent III ‘ascended the throne of Peter’ in January of 1198, and the preaching of a new crusade became the goal of his pontificate. His call was largely ignored by the Kings of Europe: the Germans were struggling against Papal power, and England and France were still busy fighting against each other.

However, due to the influence of the French preacher Fulk of Neuilly, a crusading army was finally organized at a tournament held at Écry by Count Thibaut of Champagne in 1199. Thibaut was elected leader, but he died in 1200 and was replaced by an Italian count, Boniface of Montferrat. Boniface and the other leaders sent envoys to Venice, Genoa, and other city-states to negotiate a contract for transport to Egypt, the object of their crusade. Genoa was uninterested, but in March 1201 negotiations were opened with Venice, which agreed to transport 33,500 crusaders. This agreement required a full year of preparation on the part of the Venetians to build numerous ships and train the sailors who would man them, all the while curtailing the city’s commercial activities. The crusading army was expected to comprise 4,500 knights (as well as 4,500 horses), 9,000 squires, and 20,000 foot-soldiers.

The majority of the crusading army that set out from Venice in October 1202 originated from areas within France. It included men from Blois, Champagne, Amiens, Saint-Pol, the Ile-de-France and Burgundy. Several other regions of Europe sent substantial contingents as well, such as Flanders and Montferrat. Other notable groups came from the Holy Roman Empire, including the men under Bishop Martin of Pairis and Bishop Conrad of Halberstadt, together in alliance with the Venetian soldiers and sailors led by the doge Enrico Dandolo. The crusade was to make directly for the centre of the Muslim world, Cairo, ready to sail on June 24, 1202. This agreement was ratified by Pope Innocent, with a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states.

Of course, due to some turn of events, in April 1204, the Crusaders ended up invading and conquering the city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire instead, betraying their original purpose of going to Egypt to attack the Ayyubids in order to get Jerusalem back.

Very good research! But there is a small detail: The recommendations of Pope Innocence III for the Crusaders not to attack Christian states. Another detail is that the author of this report or book was under mysterious restrains not to mention the excesses of this Fourth Crusade against the Jews. It seems to anyone with the minimum of commonsense that in the recommendations of the Pope, Jews were considered open season.

 

[NotWorthy]

Very good research! But there is a small detail: The recommendations of Pope Innocence III for the Crusaders not to attack Christian states. Another detail is that the author of this report or book was under mysterious restrains not to mention the excesses of this Fourth Crusade against the Jews. It seems to anyone with the minimum of commonsense that in the recommendations of the Pope, Jews were considered open season.

Ben, I must admit you sound like a 1:00AM phone caller on the UFO radio network. Can you explain “under mysterious restrains”? Was he externally restrained, or are you adding your own conspiracy theory to this omission.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I must admit you sound like a 1:00AM phone caller on the UFO radio network. Can you explain “under mysterious restrains”? Was he externally restrained, or are you adding your own conspiracy theory to this omission.

Hey! Welcome back NotWorthy, how are you doing? Politics, NotWorthy,
that’s what I mean by mysterious restrains. You know even better than I do how Politics works. But, anyways, I am gonna exercise some restrains myself now that you are back.

 

[Ben_Masada]

In the hopes of drawing Ben back to this thread (it seems he’s pre-occupied with another), can we get off this asinine discussion about Ben’s imagined plight with several Jewish persecutions?

It’s got nothing to do with Apollos!

No more about the asinine subject of Jewish persecutions, I promise; unless you guys keep giving me the impression that Jesus was the only one.

 

[NotWorthy]

No more about the asinine subject of Jewish persecutions, I promise; unless you guys keep giving me the impression that Jesus was the only one.

That’s a deal, my brother!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Perhaps you are unaware that Mark was an associate of Peter while Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Though they may not have met Jesus personally (Mark may have), they had access to the Apostles and wrote their gospels based upon what they learned from eye-witnesses.

Empty assertions which you cannot prove.
Your denial of the text means nothing. The Bible is a historically accurate text, and we know it to be reliable. Therefore, we can know that Jesus declared Himself to be once with the Father.
The Jews understood His claim and threatened to stone him but they What an active imagination you have.

**Mark was always a disciple of Paul’s. Only for a short time they got separated, while Mark went away with Barnabas, but soon later he rejoined Paul. Nobody is sure that he ever met Peter. But he did spend some time with the Nazarenes via Barnabas.

Regarding what you consider my empty assertions, read Acts from chapter 9. BTW, 9 and 10 will tell you if my assertions are empty or not. If the NT is so reliable as you claim, why don’t you explain to me why the infant Jesus of Luke was back in Nazareth at 40 days of age, while the one of Matthew was still stuck in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die? That would be for starters a good test for the reliability of the gospels.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

**Jesus Predicts His Death **

Mark 8:31
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

His Enemies Recall that He Predicted His Resurrection

Matthew 27:62-64
62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

Ben, it was so well-known that Jesus had spoken of his resurrection, that the Jews asked the Romans to guard the tomb.

Why would they do that if Jesus had not spoken of this in advance???

All those allusions to resurrection about Jesus were interpolations by the gospel writers 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Jesus died in the year 30 CE and there was no gospel until some time after the war of 70 CE and all the way till the end of the First Century.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Mark was always a disciple of Paul’s. Only for a short time they got separated, while Mark went away with Barnabas, but soon later he rejoined Paul. Nobody is sure that he ever met Peter. But he did spend some time with the Nazarenes via Barnabas. **

It is a commonly held tradition that Mark (John Mark) spend much time in Rome as an associate to Peter.

 

[NotWorthy]

All those allusions to resurrection about Jesus were interpolations by the gospel writers 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Jesus died in the year 30 CE and there was no gospel until some time after the war of 70 CE and all the way till the end of the First Century.

Matthew’s Aramaic version was written in the late 50’s. It’s believed that all the Synoptic Gospels (not John) were written prior to the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Matthew’s Aramaic version was written in the late 50’s. It’s believed that all the Synoptic Gospels (not John) were written prior to the destruction of the Temple.

Not according to the Catholic version of St. Joseph’s edition of the New American Bible, sponsored by a Synod of Catholic Committee of Bishops. In the preface to the gospel of Matthew they give the date of 85 CE. You might want to check that to better the knowledge of your sources.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It is a commonly held tradition that Mark (John Mark) spend much time in Rome as an associate to Peter.

**What is written brings more force than tradition. I am in my office now where I don’t have a Bible. Indeed, John Mark did spend some time in Rome but at the invitation of Paul who was in house arrest but enjoying the company of Luke, also a disciple of his.

At that time Peter had left Rome. That’s why Paul saw himself with the freedom to invite the leaders of the Roman Nazarene synagogue, which had been founded by Peter, to come over to his, Paul’s house, so that he would share with them his gospel. (Acts 28:1)
Some would come and most would leave him in disagreement. **