Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

[Padraig_77]

Everyone of its books (with the possible exception of one) was written by a Jew.

That depends on what your definition of “Jew” is. If by “Jew” you mean “of the tribe of Judah”, then you’d be wrong.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy: written by Moses, a Levite, not of Judah.

Joshua: an Ephraimite, therefore not of Judah.

Judges, Ruth, I & 2 Samuel, I & 2 Kings, I & 2 Chronicles: written by scribes (Levites).

Ezra, Nehemiah: Levites, not of Judah.

Esther: written by a priest - not of Judah.

Job: a descendant of Joktan - not of Judah.

Psalms: large part by David, and part by others.

Proverbs: many were written by Solomon.

Isaiah: a prophet, but not of Judah.

Jeremiah: of the priests and prophets therefore not of Judah.

Ezekiel: son of Buzi the priest - not of Judah.

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: none of Judah.

Jonah: of an Amittai - not of Judah.

Micah: Reubenite, therefore not of Judah.

Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai: none of Judah.

Zechariah: of Reuben, therefore not of Judah.

Malachi: not of Judah.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John: of the tribe of Benjamin.

Acts: Luke of the tribe of Benjamin, not of Judah.

Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & 2 Thessalonians, I & 2 TImothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews: by Paul, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

James: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

I & 2 Peter: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

1, 2 & 3 John: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Jude: by Jude, a brother of James, not of Judah.

Revelation: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Thus not a line of the New Testament was written by a Jew.

If you are somehow implying that modern “Jews” are the same people of the Bible then, once again, you’d be wrong. Modern “Jews” descend from Edomite converts to Mosaism, who later transformed it into Pharisaism which then became modern Judaism. The Jews of today have no connection to Jacob (Israel) or any of his 12 sons.

Christ was a Judahite, not a “Jew”.

 

[mercygate]

and the Hebrew (k’nesset) and Aramaic ('edhta) words mean to gather/congregate.

Who does not gather, scatters. Someone said that.

And doesn’t the Epistle to the Hebrews tell us not to absent ourselves from the assembly? And what were they DOING at the assembly? Um. Was it celebrating the Eucharist? Is THAT why the author warns against “believng the covenant blood to be common?”

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisalone
Jesus instructed His disciples not to lord over as the gentiles do yet that is exactly what Rome has done. Weare not seperated when we are in Christ.
When we put Christ first we are one. When we put false definitions of “church” before Christ and His body we are fractured. The root of the fracture has always abided in Rome. **

so, you blame the CC because the people decided to leave? du ring the life of the Church many came up with heretic beliefs and you think that the Church should have kept all the heretic beliefs? so you also blame the CC because you are not in her?

would you say the protestants churches are one? for what i see you all claim to put Christ first. am i right?

 

[PerryJ]

The quote is from Eight Homilies Against the Jews . One would hope that the “explanation” given for justifying murder of Jews would be at least questionable in your eyes.

Murder of anyone is not justified and is reprehensible. Unfortuanetly we have had people within our Church fail as we are made up of sinners.

Since that time we had many Popes support the Jewish faith and I would expect that to continue.

 

[cazayoux]

Do you know that Christs real presence is with you continually? That you can have a relationship with Christ. That the God who made heaven and earth can reside inside you? How awesome is that?

That IS fantastic!! I LOVE it!

michel

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Indeed the term antisemitism was coined in Germany in 1860. This however does not preclude its existence before then. Persecutions of Jews whether on a religious or “racial” basis did not start in 1860. Chrysostom’s Eight Homilies Against the Jews
from the end of the fourth century of the common era is both a source and a justification of persecution of Jews and it doesn’t matter what term is used.

Supersessionism, except economic suppressionism (I know, we disagree here), is a heresy, condemned since Marcion in 144 (btw, since he seperated the OT from the NT, he was the first opportunity the Church had to affirm the OT. He made a large donation (he was very wealthy, the Church used it to buy the catacombs), which the Church repaid back as soon as he was excommunicated, following Father Abraham’s example (Gen. 14.23)). St. John has strayed close, if not into, punitive supersessionism, a heresy St. Paul would know nothing about, or have anything to do with.

That being said, again he here is in a dynamic that the rabbis themselves were not uninvolved with.

Jews as Jews are responsible to carry out all the 613 commandments while Gentiles have only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. This has nothing to do with “foulness” but with an acceptance by Jews of an extra burden. This incidentally is the meaning behind “chosen people” which has nothing to do with superiourity but with the acceptance of that extra burden.

The reference from the Talmud is from Avodah Zarah (idolatry) and deals with the “foul” and abusive practices of pagan idolators that were prevelant during the first half of the common era. If indeed you practice ancient abusive to animals pagan idolatry from thousands of years ago then indeed you are the foul Gentile referred to in this single passage you constantly quote. Just for the record the word “Christian” does not appear in the passage.

Not even mentions the “Minim” Judeo-Christians.

I don’t know if you saw up the linked thread, but this section came up in the context of the Trinity, Incarnation and the implications of both for the status of a son of Abraham (Avodah Zarah means “strange/alien worship/service” for the Hebraically challenged), the compatability of Christianity with the OT/Tanakh, etc… i.e. shituf ( Sepharad had originally dismissed it (btw, I didn’t bring it up, but I knew of it) as white supremacist propoganda.and I think (I can’t look up the posts right now, sorry if my memory fails me) brought up that such things are fabricated (I’ll have to take her word for it).

Btw, just to state for the record, the ideas of equality owe far more to Jerusalem than to Athens or Rome combined. That’s just a historical fact.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That depends on what your definition of “Jew” is. If by “Jew” you mean “of the tribe of Judah”, then you’d be wrong.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy: written by Moses, a Levite, not of Judah.

Joshua: an Ephraimite, therefore not of Judah.

Judges, Ruth, I & 2 Samuel, I & 2 Kings, I & 2 Chronicles: written by scribes (Levites).

Ezra, Nehemiah: Levites, not of Judah.

Esther: written by a priest - not of Judah.

Job: a descendant of Joktan - not of Judah.

Psalms: large part by David, and part by others.

Proverbs: many were written by Solomon.

Isaiah: a prophet, but not of Judah.

Jeremiah: of the priests and prophets therefore not of Judah.

Ezekiel: son of Buzi the priest - not of Judah.

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: none of Judah.

Jonah: of an Amittai - not of Judah.

Micah: Reubenite, therefore not of Judah.

Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai: none of Judah.

Zechariah: of Reuben, therefore not of Judah.

Malachi: not of Judah.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John: of the tribe of Benjamin.

Acts: Luke of the tribe of Benjamin, not of Judah.

Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & 2 Thessalonians, I & 2 TImothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews: by Paul, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

James: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

I & 2 Peter: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

1, 2 & 3 John: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Jude: by Jude, a brother of James, not of Judah.

Revelation: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Thus not a line of the New Testament was written by a Jew.

If you are somehow implying that modern “Jews” are the same people of the Bible then, once again, you’d be wrong. Modern “Jews” descend from Edomite converts to Mosaism, who later transformed it into Pharisaism which then became modern Judaism. The Jews of today have no connection to Jacob (Israel) or any of his 12 sons.

Christ was a Judahite, not a “Jew”.

Not only has history refuted you conclusion, but genetic testing too.

The Jews (and I mean the Modern Ones, let alone those of the 1st cent.) are descendents of Jacob, and their Kohenim sons of Aaron.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And doesn’t the Epistle to the Hebrews tell us not to absent ourselves from the assembly? And what were they DOING at the assembly? Um. Was it celebrating the Eucharist? Is THAT why the author warns against “believng the covenant blood to be common?”

Ya think?

 

[Thomas_Cranmer]

Ask yourself, in the book of Romans, why doesn’t Paul address “the Pope” Peter? He mentions a lot of people in the introduction, but Peter is not one of them. Curious? Well no, because he wasn’t there. Peter was never a leader in Rome, or probably never there.

 

[mercygate]

Ask yourself, in the book of Romans, why doesn’t Paul address “the Pope” Peter? He mentions a lot of people in the introduction, but Peter is not one of them. Curious? Well no, because he wasn’t there. Peter was never a leader in Rome, or probably ever there.

And you call yourself “Thomas Cranmer”? As a former Anglican, I blush for you!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ask yourself, in the book of Romans, why doesn’t Paul address “the Pope” Peter? He mentions a lot of people in the introduction, but Peter is not one of them. Curious? Well no, because he wasn’t there. Peter was never a leader in Rome, or probably ever there.

Consult Peter’s epistle, the reference to Babylon.

Most Protestants never have a problem identifying Rome with Babylon. In fact, some never tire of it.

You forget another opition: St. Peter was still in Antioch, and not in Rome yet.

 

[po18guy]

Ask yourself, in the book of Romans, why doesn’t Paul address “the Pope” Peter? He mentions a lot of people in the introduction, but Peter is not one of them. Curious? Well no, because he wasn’t there. Peter was never a leader in Rome, or probably never there.

For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Paul was actually the first pope, and leader of all Christians. You still refuse to join his church! You still refuse to follow his teachings. You still remain willingly outside of the church that Paul “founded”.

Show me where you hold fast to Paul’s teachings, to Paul’s traditions, and you will have some credibility.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Consult Peter’s epistle, the reference to Babylon.

Most Protestants never have a problem identifying Rome with Babylon. In fact, some never tire of it.

You forget another opition: St. Peter was still in Antioch, and not in Rome yet.

Precisely! I love the zeal of revisionist historians. If only they had that same zeal for unity in Christ. If only they had that zeal for His Body and Blood. If only…

Christ’s peace.

 

[PerryJ]

Ask yourself, in the book of Romans, why doesn’t Paul address “the Pope” Peter? He mentions a lot of people in the introduction, but Peter is not one of them. Curious? Well no, because he wasn’t there. Peter was never a leader in Rome, or probably never there.

If I remember correctly didn’t St. Ignatius from the first century discuss Peter being in Rome? Wasn’t he a student of St. John? I guess he could be mistaken; but, since he lived during the time of Peter’s crucifixion I wouldn’t think so!

Didn’t St. Irenaeus in the second century discuss Peter being in Rome? He was second generation after Peter. I am assuming you know where your grandfather lived? This wouldn’t be any different.

 

[chosen_people]

That depends on what your definition of “Jew” is. If by “Jew” you mean “of the tribe of Judah”, then you’d be wrong.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy: written by Moses, a Levite, not of Judah.

Joshua: an Ephraimite, therefore not of Judah.

Judges, Ruth, I & 2 Samuel, I & 2 Kings, I & 2 Chronicles: written by scribes (Levites).

Ezra, Nehemiah: Levites, not of Judah.

Esther: written by a priest - not of Judah.

Job: a descendant of Joktan - not of Judah.

Psalms: large part by David, and part by others.

Proverbs: many were written by Solomon.

Isaiah: a prophet, but not of Judah.

Jeremiah: of the priests and prophets therefore not of Judah.

Ezekiel: son of Buzi the priest - not of Judah.

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: none of Judah.

Jonah: of an Amittai - not of Judah.

Micah: Reubenite, therefore not of Judah.

Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai: none of Judah.

Zechariah: of Reuben, therefore not of Judah.

Malachi: not of Judah.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John: of the tribe of Benjamin.

Acts: Luke of the tribe of Benjamin, not of Judah.

Romans, I & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & 2 Thessalonians, I & 2 TImothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews: by Paul, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

James: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

I & 2 Peter: A Benjaminite, not of Judah.

1, 2 & 3 John: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Jude: by Jude, a brother of James, not of Judah.

Revelation: by John, a Benjaminite, not of Judah.

Thus not a line of the New Testament was written by a Jew.

If you are somehow implying that modern “Jews” are the same people of the Bible then, once again, you’d be wrong. Modern “Jews” descend from Edomite converts to Mosaism, who later transformed it into Pharisaism which then became modern Judaism. The Jews of today have no connection to Jacob (Israel) or any of his 12 sons.

Christ was a Judahite, not a “Jew”.

Indeed your view is the one that is promulgated on stormfront.org.

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone, let me say this one more time, read it real slow, I know its been said over and over but somehow it hasn’t sunk in with you.
I just keep thinking that there has to be a way for you to understand this:
When we receive Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist , we not only receive Him physically, but also Sacramentally, just as at the Last Supper, Jesus was right there with them physically and Sacramentally, He still is! He said so, we believe Him.

allhers your moniker says more than you know.
Let me say this slowly and let me say this again.
You believe that in the eucharist you recieve Christ.
I understand that you believe this I really do.
What I am saying to you is that you can recieve, walk in, walk with Christ at anytime. You can live in the continual presensece of God and have the continual presence of God abiding, residing within you continually. The real presence of God is this habitation.

 

[Hisalone]

chosen_people:
"Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”.

No. This is not a quote from Mein Kampf .

St. Chrysostom explains why Jews are no better than animals and why its no sin for good Catholics to murder them.

Yes the antiJew of many early fathers should make all people of Gods’ stomach turn. Chrysostom (I will not honor him by calling him saint) was among the worse. Dont talk about Luther I know what he wrote.

 

[Hisalone]

Really? Or is it in the human heart? Remember that Christ spoke of nothing that went into a man could make him unclean. Rather, it was what comes from the heart that makes him unclean.

You rebel against church authority at the risk of your soul. You fashion a Christ that is agreeable to you. A faithful Catholic does not. Which is denial of self? By our very nature, neither of us wants to keep Christ’s commands. But, Christ said to deny yourself.

I submitted to God’s will and joined, even though I had personal differences with the church that took DECADES to resolve. I remained, and the Lord has graciously erased all of my objections. But first, I had to deny myself.

Do you love Christ enough to follow Him wherever He leads? Even into the Catholic church? You must confront this question, since it remains a reality. Do you love Christ enough?

Do you love Christ enough to follow where He leads even if it is outside the Catholic Church even if it means to turn away from the faith of all your family and your support group to follow Him. Do you have the courage to do that?

 

[po18guy]

allhers your moniker says more than you know.
Let me say this slowly and let me say this again.
You believe that in the eucharist you recieve Christ.
I understand that you believe this I really do.
What I am saying to you is that you can recieve, walk in, walk with Christ at anytime. You can live in the continual presensece of God and have the continual presence of God abiding, residing within you continually. The real presence of God is this habitation.

And, please know that Catholics have everything you love about Christ, and more. We carry Christ physically within us, as He spoke in John 6. He is not only spiritual food, but real food and drink. We spend time in His presence at Adoration. How do you beat that?

We know that you love Christ - we are simply telling you that there is much more to him than the <1% of His life written in the bible. Much more.

We boast only in our Lord, and invite you.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Hisalone]

If only Hisalone realized that Christ is present, in the Flesh, in the Tabernacle, he would rush down to the nearest parish! You and I spend time with our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. We eat His Body and drink His Blood. There is no more personal relationship with Christ on this earth! Christ in the Eucharist has attracted uncounted souls to the faith. If only those claiming a “personal relationship” with Christ could know what that really means.

Thanks to illumination by the Holy Spirit, they can. Let’s pray for it. Praise God. Amen! Alleluia!

Christs real presence abides in a believers heart continually.