Their Hollow Inheritance

[Unitas]

The Jews killed their Messiah"? I thought your church stopped teaching that Jews are collectively guilty of deicide?

Or did that not trickle down to you?

This is REALLY starting to remind me of the day in 1970 when Catholic schools girls beat the heck out of me for being a “christ killer”. They repeated, several times as theyr smashed my face into the brick wall of Oteri’s Bakery, “YOU killed OUR LORD!”

Nice people. Seems they are all grown up now and hanging out HERE.

Never would I want to be a Christian. But even if I did, the Catholic church would be the absolute LAST church I’d consider. Because experience is the best teacher.

If you can show me where the Church says it’s ok to bash the faces of jews into the brick wall of Oteri’s bakery, then I’ll agree with you.

We are a Church of sinners, not saints.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

If you can show me where the Church says it’s ok to bash the faces of jews into the brick wall of Oteri’s bakery, then I’ll agree with you.

We are a Church of sinners, not saints.

Well, we definitely agree on that last sentence anyway!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Jews killed their Messiah"? I thought your church stopped teaching that Jews are collectively guilty of deicide?

Or did that not trickle down to you?

The teachings of the Church do not change. The Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus - their Messiah. They were the ones that persuaded Pilate to put him to death.

Each individual Jew is not guilty of murder, but as long as they remain unbelievers they will suffer the consequences of this action. Had the Jewish leaders of the day accepted their Messiah, the Jews today would be believers. Unfortunately, they rejected Him, had him put to death, and thereby “brought his blood upon themselves and their children”. You can’t blame the Christians for that.

This is REALLY starting to remind me of the day in 1970 when Catholic schools girls beat the heck out of me for being a “christ killer”. They repeated, several times as theyr smashed my face into the brick wall of Oteri’s Bakery, “YOU killed OUR LORD!”

Nice people. Seems they are all grown up now and hanging out HERE.

Those girls committed a sin, but it doesn’t follow that we are now required to deny the truth.

But be sure to keep this in mind when you consider what those bad girls did to you. The Jews of the first century not only beat up, but they actually killed St. Stephen for being a Christian. Aren’t you glad those girls didn’t do to you what the Jews did to St. Stephen?

Just as the unbelieving Jews were wrong to kill St. Stephen, so too were those girls wrong for beating you up.

Never would I want to be a Christian. But even if I did, the Catholic church would be the absolute LAST church I’d consider. Because experience is the best teacher.

Don’t harden your heart to the truth. That is exactly what the devil wants you to do. You did a very good thing by calling a Priest to your mother at the time of her death. Hopefully her prayers for you will gain you the grace you need to see the truth.

Like I mentioned in the earlier post, I think the mass conversion of the Jews is right around the corner. When that happens, I’m sure you will be among them.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

This is because Christians and Muslims do not truly understand what it MEANS to be the am segulah (chosen people.)

It does NOT mean we are better than nonJews. It means we were given a very sacred, yet terrifying mission, one that for the most part (apart from the very Orthodox), we have failed to live up to, hence the punishments throughout our history.

With the blessings promised for keeping the Torah also comes punishments for breaking it. Few Gentiles and even fewer (non-religious) Jews realize this.

It has nothing to with superiority and everything to do with mission.

Well the other reason Jews were Chosen is to reveal God to the world, and that happened with Jesus, but from then on the rest of the world learned about God from missionary Christians who risked their lives to preach God, and from the Christian Bible which has been published in all nations in many languages.

So Jews kind of turned over the reigns to Christians when they rejected Jesus, and ceased for so long to be primary teachers of God to the world.

Especially when Jews tell me all the time that the Hebrew text and God is theirs, and none of my business. That’s a sad attitude compared to the Christian one of wanting to share those with unbelievers.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

The teachings of the Church do not change. The Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus - their Messiah. They were the ones that persuaded Pilate to put him to death.

Each individual Jew is not guilty of murder, but as long as they remain unbelievers they will suffer the consequences of this action. Had the Jewish leaders of the day accepted their Messiah, the Jews today would be believers. Unfortunately, they rejected Him, had him put to death, and thereby “brought his blood upon themselves and their children”. You can’t blame the Christians for that.

Those girls committed a sin, but it doesn’t follow that we are now required to deny the truth.

But be sure to keep this in mind when you consider what those bad girls did to you. The Jews of the first century not only beat up, but they actually killed St. Stephen for being a Christian. Aren’t you glad those girls didn’t do to you what the Jews did to St. Stephen?

Just as the unbelieving Jews were wrong to kill St. Stephen, so too were those girls wrong for beating you up.

Don’t harden your heart to the truth. That is exactly what the devil wants you to do. You did a very good thing by calling a Priest to your mother at the time of her death. Hopefully her prayers for you will gain you the grace you need to see the truth.

Like I mentioned in the earlier post, I think the mass conversion of the Jews is right around the corner. When that happens, I’m sure you will be among them.

I really think you should contact TAN and get a copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. See what it says about the charge that the Jews “killed christ”.

The CCT (although from before V2, interestingly) says that the sin of crucifying Jesus is GREATER IN CHRISTIANS, because they BELIEVE Jesus was the messiah, yet often CONTINUE TO SIN. As some Catholics I know like to say, “When a Catholic sins, he is crucifying Christ all over again”.

Maybe you need to look inwardly for the true crucifiers, and not at my people. And remember that the next time you commit a mortal sin (or even a venial one)…remember that YOU ARE A CHRIST KILLER every time you sin.

As for me, I would rather die than be a convert to another religion, esp. one that is not monotheistic. I would die defending my faith in Hashem, willingly, rather than become an apostate.

My late mother used to say, “We all (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe in the same God, we just worship Him in different ways”. What a shame people like you can’t see that, because its the truth.

 

[LaMar]

I love how the charge of antisemitism is thrown around so easily these days.

That Christ wanted us to convert all nations is not antisemitic.

A relatively large portion of the New Testament is explicitly dedicated to Jew bashing. Anyone who reads it, even casually, finds this obvious.

In context I’m sure it’s simple rivalry. There are portions of Talmud which bash gentiles and portions of Qur’an which bash both Jews and Christians. All these religions started out in conflict. There’s no reason to keep this stone-age hatred around now.

If there were intelligent people in charge of these religions, all these books would be re-written to bring them in line with civilized behavior. If I were in charge of editing scripture, I’d also bring them in line with archeology, biology, geology and etc., but simply ridding the bible of nasty talk about others would be a fair start.

 

[Unitas]

If there were intelligent people in charge of these religions, all these books would be re-written to bring them in line with civilized behavior. If I were in charge of editing scripture, I’d also bring them in line with archeology, biology, geology and etc., but simply ridding the bible of nasty talk about others would be a fair start.

Oh, of course! Then when times change yet again we can edit them again, and again, and again, …

Why don’t we just make up our own scriptures while we’re at it? I mean, if we can just change things around why not just make it up as we go? Everything’s relative, right? As long as we think it’s the truth then it is. And let’s make scripture subject to science, because science is never wrong and can explain everything…

Too bad intelligent people like you aren’t in charge.

 

[Unitas]

As for me, I would rather die than be a convert to another religion, esp. one that is not monotheistic. … My late mother used to say, “We all (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe in the same God, we just worship Him in different ways”. What a shame people like you can’t see that, because its the truth.

Well if we’re not monotheistic then we’re not really worshipping the same God now, are we?

And if all those faiths are morally equivalent, why bother staying jewish and not converting to any of the others? Apostasy is meaningless if you meet the same end regardless.

 

[LaMar]

Oh, of course! Then when times change yet again we can edit them again, and again, and again, …

Why don’t we just make up our own scriptures while we’re at it? I mean, if we can just change things around why not just make it up as we go? Everything’s relative, right? As long as we think it’s the truth then it is. And let’s make scripture subject to science, because science is never wrong and can explain everything…

Too bad intelligent people like you aren’t in charge.

Yeah, it is too bad.

I’m sure when Rebbe Saul of Tarsus was flock stealing from the rival synagogues, there was some legitimate feeling behind the anti-Jew stuff he wrote. Whatever legitimacy this might have had in the first century is now completely irrelevant. You believers don’t even know the reasons behind it, you just find it as justification to beat folks up outside the bakery. History is gone…only hatred remains. What use is any of that? It’s all a lot of anti-social nonsense, and has nothing to do with the real teachings of Jesus.

That’s part of the reason I stay (at least in name) in my tradition. The Book of Mormon is being re-written, by smart people. The anti-native-American idiocy authored by an ignorant farmboy? All gone within the last 30 years. The anti-Black idiocy authored by Brigham Young? Rightly relegated to the trash heap. This is progress, not heresy.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yeah, it is too bad.

That’s part of the reason I stay (at least in name) in my tradition. The Book of Mormon is being re-written, by smart people. The anti-native-American idiocy authored by an ignorant farmboy? All gone within the last 30 years. The anti-Black idiocy authored by Brigham Young? Rightly relegated to the trash heap. This is progress, not heresy.

I just need one point of clarification, as I’m just trying to understand.

By doing away with the anti-native American and anti-Black writings, is that how LDS denounce something, or is there some sort of official declaration from church leaders?

The reason I’m asking is, isn’t it possible some LDS members have out of date copies of these things, and are still following them?

When my parents passed away, they still had old Catholic Missels, in Latin, even though the Mass was changed to the vernacular language as part of Vatican II.

Not trying to insult or anything, just wondering how all of it worked.

 

[Unitas]

You believers don’t even know the reasons behind it, you just find it as justification to beat folks up outside the bakery.

Prove it.

Here’s the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va
Catholic encyclopedia: www.newadvent.org
the Catechism: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
code of canon law: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
the bible: www.drbo.org

Show us where we use it as justification for beating up little jewish girls. You made the accusation, back it up if you’re correct. There’s more than enough resources there for you. Should be simple for you.

That’s part of the reason I stay (at least in name) in my tradition. The Book of Mormon is being re-written, by smart people. The anti-native-American idiocy authored by an ignorant farmboy? All gone within the last 30 years. The anti-Black idiocy authored by Brigham Young? Rightly relegated to the trash heap. This is progress, not heresy.

If it can be changed on a whim it must not be all that true to begin with. But I guess truth is relative, right?

 

[LaMar]

Hey Two Peking Guys (I love your nickname),

You made a great point here…

I just need one point of clarification, as I’m just trying to understand.

By doing away with the anti-native American and anti-Black writings, is that how LDS denounce something, or is there some sort of official declaration from church leaders?

The reason I’m asking is, isn’t it possible some LDS members have out of date copies of these things, and are still following them?

When my parents passed away, they still had old Catholic Missels, in Latin, even though the Mass was changed to the vernacular language as part of Vatican II.

Not trying to insult or anything, just wondering how all of it worked.

Absolutely correct. My parents still have the old McConkie book Mormon Doctrine which will probably pass on to me 20 years from now, and I’ll keep it as a historical curiosity. I’ll point my own grand-children to the part that refers to the Catholic Church as the “whore of all the earth”, and the part that describes people of African descent as “accursed”, and we’ll all laugh about how totally ridiculous it seems.

The LDS church has a lot of educated people at the head of it. They know better than to make a clean break (even though that would satisfy the impatient types, like me) with all the looney nonsense which was originally part of the religion. That would upset the sheep too much.

In 20 years, the Book of Mormon will be free of the last traces of racism (it’s almost there now). We’re all aware that Native American/First Nations peoples came across the Bering land bridge 30,000 years ago, as opposed to the Atlantic in a boat. That part is being cleansed now, with a revision this year.

Eventually, I suspect the LDS church will re-write the Old and New Testaments. They have an archaeology center in Jerusalem which has been hard at work for 20 years now, so I think this might turn out to be a question of when, rather than if.

 

[LaMar]

If it can be changed on a whim it must not be all that true to begin with. But I guess truth is relative, right?

Quid veritas est?

Historical and scientific truth is not relative. I realize you don’t understand the ideal of objectivity, but I think some of the readers of this post will. There are limits on what we can prove with the scientific method, but it’s the best we have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

For example: remember how Catholics believed that the sun travelled around the earth, and how Jupiter travelled around the earth, and how Jupiter’s moons couldn’t exist? And how the fellow who looked through his telescope was viewed as a dangerous person to be threatened?

Maybe you’ll understand the principle in that context. Your religion has changed too. Intelligent people re-wrote your scriptures, to bring them in line with truth. Same idea.

Hope that helps,

LaMar

 

[twopekinguys]

Hey Two Peking Guys (I love your nickname),

You made a great point here…

Absolutely correct. My parents still have the old McConkie book Mormon Doctrine which will probably pass on to me 20 years from now, and I’ll keep it as a historical curiosity. I’ll point my own grand-children to the part that refers to the Catholic Church as the “whore of all the earth”, and the part that describes people of African descent as “accursed”, and we’ll all laugh about how totally ridiculous it seems.

The LDS church has a lot of educated people at the head of it. They know better than to make a clean break (even though that would satisfy the impatient types, like me) with all the looney nonsense which was originally part of the religion. That would upset the sheep too much.

In 20 years, the Book of Mormon will be free of the last traces of racism (it’s almost there now). We’re all aware that Native American/First Nations peoples came across the Bering land bridge 30,000 years ago, as opposed to the Atlantic in a boat. That part is being cleansed now, with a revision this year.

Eventually, I suspect the LDS church will re-write the Old and New Testaments. They have an archaeology center in Jerusalem which has been hard at work for 20 years now, so I think this might turn out to be a question of when, rather than if.

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

[Unitas]

Quid veritas est?

If you can change it at will, indeed.

Historical and scientific truth is not relative. I realize you don’t understand the ideal of objectivity,

A person who would change truth on a whim to suit himself is going to educate me on objectivity… Surely you’re intelligent enough to see the irony in that?

Your arrogance damages your case.

but I think some of the readers of this post will. There are limits on what we can prove with the scientific method, but it’s the best we have.

All well and good of you’re writing a textbook.

But not for discerning scripture which has to do with faith and morals.

For example: remember how Catholics believed that the sun travelled around the earth, and how Jupiter travelled around the earth, and how Jupiter’s moons couldn’t exist? And how the fellow who looked through his telescope was viewed as a dangerous person to be threatened?

And geocentrism was infallibly defined when exactly?

Maybe you’ll understand the principle in that context. Your religion has changed too. Intelligent people re-wrote your scriptures, to bring them in line with truth. Same idea.

Really?

Prove it.

Objective truth is defined by God. We cannot change it if we wanted to or not.

Oh and while you’re at it, show me where Catholicism justifies beating up little jewish girls, in case you forgot.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I really think you should contact TAN and get a copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. See what it says about the charge that the Jews “killed christ”.

I have that Catechism but it may take me a while to find that part (but I will look it up). How does what it teaches differ from what I wrote?

The CCT (although from before V2, interestingly) says that the sin of crucifying Jesus is GREATER IN CHRISTIANS, because they BELIEVE Jesus was the messiah, yet often CONTINUE TO SIN. As some Catholics I know like to say, “When a Catholic sins, he is crucifying Christ all over again”.

There is no question that a Catholic who goes to hell goes to a deeper place in hell than an unbeliever. This is the common teaching of the Church. The reason is because the Catholic received more grace than the unbeliever and therefore will suffer a greater punishment.

Maybe you need to look inwardly for the true crucifiers, and not at my people. And remember that the next time you commit a mortal sin (or even a venial one)…remember that YOU ARE A CHRIST KILLER every time you sin.

I see how it works, I am a Christ killer, but the Jews are not.

If you are going to attack the Catholic Church, I am going to defend the Catholic Church. I am also not going to shy away from saying that the Jews killed their Messiah, which is exactly what the Bible itself teaches.

1 Thess 2:15-16: …“the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men… for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end”.

As for me, I would rather die than be a convert to another religion, esp. one that is not monotheistic.

I wouldn’t convert to a religion that is not monotheistic either.

I would die defending my faith in Hashem, willingly, rather than become an apostate.

But by rejecting Christ you are following the apostates of your own religion.

My late mother used to say, “We all (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe in the same God, we just worship Him in different ways”. What a shame people like you can’t see that, because its the truth.

Objectively, yes. Subjectively, no.

As Jesus said to the women at the well: “You worship that which you know not”. In other words, what you worship objectively, you know not subjectively.

 

[RC_Matt]

A relatively large portion of the New Testament is explicitly dedicated to Jew bashing. Anyone who reads it, even casually, finds this obvious.

I don’t know that it’s so much Jew bashing as it is “Pharisee bashing.” In other words, condemnation of self-righteous people who make a big show of practicing “religion,” and by so doing consider themselves to be superior to others and the more “righteous” in the eyes of God; without regard to how they may conduct their other affairs or treat their fellow man. Being outwardly religious, which has no value in itself, and spiritually dead. Christ’s teaching was to love your neighbor as yourself, and many people who merely “practice religion” did (and do) anything but that. I think that’s the dichotomy Jesus was trying to express and it is applicable to any individual or group of individuals.

 

[Freshman88]

That’s one match you’re (physiologically) going to win.

That’s exactly why I said I would have no problem admitting that the destruction of Israel was worse, and then made the case that it’s impossible to come to any firm conclusion anyway.

Study at 4 more and you’ll break even (or, in other words, academic bragging seldom works and is unworthy of a scholar).

Oh yes, I am doing my sophmore year of my history major, I am bragging soooooooooo much. Or was I simply pointing out that i’ve dealt with this information recently?

Actually, all I’ve been doing is dealing with a context problem. The rest is all of your creation.

 

[Kaninchen]

That’s exactly why I said I would have no problem admitting that the destruction of Israel was worse, and then made the case that it’s impossible to come to any firm conclusion anyway.

I used the word ‘physiologically’ to point out that those of us who make up one half of the population are at a natural disadvantage in the kind of contest you suggested - that was all.

 

[Freshman88]

I used the word ‘physiologically’ to point out that those of us who make up one half of the population are at a natural disadvantage in the kind of contest you suggested - that was all.

lol, my bad, I misread the original.