Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

[allhers]

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]

Once when my wife and I were doing our nightly Bible reading, I was reading that passage from Acts, and my wife did fall asleep. To make matters worse, my name is Paul, too.

Glad you didn’t fall out a window or anything.
I really enjoy watching you guys talk to hisalone, but I just had to step in for a sec. (Back to reading now.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No actually it is the word of God.

1 Peter1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises **of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; **

We are called by God out of darkness by His word.
We are the called out ones.
Ekklessia means called out ones. Not what you have distorted and called church!

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

Who does not gather, scatters. Someone said that.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Who does not gather, scatters. Someone said that.

Who?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

LOL, yep and remember what happened to him!

He was raised from the dead.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Who?

Always for Him?

 

[allhers]

He was raised from the dead.

It also talks about the first day of the week right around that verse too. (Goes to show that the Church already had changed that, doesn’t it?) Didn’t St. Chrysostom have something to say about that?
I am Latin rite but I do remember hearing things about St. Chrysostom too. Always liked him.

 

[chosen_people]

It also talks about the first day of the week right around that verse too. (Goes to show that the Church already had changed that, doesn’t it?) Didn’t St. Chrysostom have something to say about that?
I am Latin rite but I do remember hearing things about St. Chrysostom too. Always liked him.

"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.

 

[po18guy]

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.

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?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

"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.

Ah, Chosen. Is this that context you were talking about aobut the Talmud story how the serpent spat “foulness” on Eve, which the goyim (Gentiles, that’s YOU) still have but the Jews don’t because the Torah cleansed them of it on Sinai?

Jews, the Talmud, and Jesus

Care to translate?

דף כב,ב גמרא ורמינהי לוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן ואין חוששין לא משום רובע ולא משום נרבע ולא משום מוקצה ולא משום נעבד בשלמא מוקצה ונעבד אם איתא דאקצייה ואם איתא דפלחיה לא הוה מזבין ליה אלא רובע ונרבע לחוש אמר רב תחליפא אמר רב שילא בר אבינא משמיה דרב <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} חס על בהמתו שלא תעקר התינח נקבות זכרים מאי איכא למימר אמר רב כהנא הואיל ומכחישין בבשר אלא הא דתניא לוקחין בהמה מרועה שלהן ליחוש דלמא רבעה לה רועה שלהן מתיירא משום הפסד שכר אלא הא דתניא אין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהן לימא רועה שלהן מתיירא משום הפסד שכרו אינהו דידעי בהדדי מרתתי אנן דלא ידעינן בהו לא מרתתי אמר רבה היינו דאמרי אינשי מכתבא גללא בזע רגלא בחבריה ידע אי הכי זכרים מנקבות לא ניזבון דחיישינן דלמא מרבעא ליה עילוה כיון דמיגרי בה מרתתא אלא הא דתני רב יוסף ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא ולא תשרי בר בי רב באושפיזא בשלמא בר בי רב צניע לה אלא כלבא כיון דמיגרה בה מרתתא כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא ומסריך אבתרה מימר אמרי אינשי האי דמסריך אבתרה משום אומצא דקא מסריך נקבות אצל נקבות מאי טעמא לא מייחדינן אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא מפני <שהעובדי כוכבים> {שהגוים} מצויין אצל נשי חבריהן ופעמים שאינו מוצאה ומוצא את הבהמה ורובעה ואיבעית אימא אפילו מוצאה נמי רובעה דאמר מר חביבה עליהן בהמתן של ישראל יותר מנשותיהן דא"ר יוחנן בשעה שבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא אי הכי ישראל נמי ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים} שלא עמדו על הר סיני לא פסקה זוהמתן איבעיא להו עופות מאי תא שמע דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא אני ראיתי <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} שלקח אווז מן השוק רבעה חנקה צלאה ואכלה וא"ר ירמיה מדיפתי אני ראיתי ערבי אחד שלקח ירך מן השוק וחקק בה כדי רביעה רבעה צלאה ואכלה
mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4702.htm

Sorry I can’t highlight, it screws up the text, its the least 7 lines or so that I am looking at. Hope they spelled it right.

Part of this was St Chrysostom was as anxious to draw a distinction between Jew and Gentile as the rabbis were, as the linked thread discussed shows (for those who haven’t seen it, it includes a rabbinic claim that St. Paul was working as a double agent to undermine Christianity in favor of Judaism).

 

[allhers]

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.

:bigyikes: No, I had never heard of that one, do you have a link to go with the rest of it so we could read it in context so we could know what was going on that he would say such a thing??

(well, I noticed just above my post, that Isa explained it already.)

 

[chosen_people]

Ah, Chosen. Is this that context you were talking about aobut the Talmud story how the serpent spat “foulness” on Eve, which the goyim (Gentiles, that’s YOU) still have but the Jews don’t because the Torah cleansed them of it on Sinai?

Part of this was St Chrysostom was as anxious to draw a distinction between Jew and Gentile as the rabbis were, as the linked thread discussed shows (for those who haven’t seen it, it includes a rabbinic claim that St. Paul was working as a double agent to undermine Christianity in favor of Judaism).

Despite your repeated and deliberate misinterpretations of the Talmud and its context it is hardly relevant here. Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile to get into the world to come as he has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. Chrysostom preached a Catholic religious justification for the murder of Jews. Unfortunately for Chrysostom and the murderers he inspired it turns out that one of the seven Noahide commandments is “Thou shall not murder”.

 

[po18guy]

Tremendously! We receive Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist, just as John 6 commands us to do, so that we not only receive Him physically, His grace --while we remain conformed to His will and thus, without grave sin–abides in us forever. How wonderful if you would embrace the Catholic Truth and be able to receive Jesus physically too!

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!

 

[allhers]

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!

Will join you in that prayer too.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Despite your repeated and deliberate misinterpretations of the Talmud

often asserted but yet to be proven.

and its context it is hardly relevant here.

And the relevance of St. Chrysostom’s anti-semiticism (yes, that’s what it was).?

Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile to get into the world to come as he has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments.

that’s good, since they have all that “foulness” working against them. After all, they can’t fullfill the 613 commandments in tum’ah, can they?

Chrysostom preached a Catholic religious justification for the murder of Jews.

For those interested in Chrysostom:

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.
Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century, (Berkeley: University of California Press:1983) pp. 124-6.

Unfortunately for Chrysostom and the murderers he inspired it turns out that one of the seven Noahide commandments is “Thou shall not murder”.

I you speaking of Chrysostom’s ultimate fate?

 

[allhers]

This is more like what I was speaking about.
It goes with what we were talking about earlier in the thread.
7 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight. 8 And there were a great number of lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled. 9 **And a certain young man named Eutychus, sitting on the window, being oppressed with a deep sleep, (as Paul was long preaching,) by occasion of his sleep fell from the third loft down, and was taken up dead. **10 To whom, when Paul had gone down, he laid himself upon him, and embracing him, said: Be not troubled, for his soul is in him.

**7 “And on the first day of the week”… Here St. Chrysostom and many other interpreters of the scripture explain, that the Christians even at this time, must have changed the sabbath into the first day of the week, (the Lord’s day,) as all Christians now keep it. This change was undoubtedly made by the authority of the church; hence the exercise of the power, which Christ had given to her: for he is Lord of the sabbath. **

11 Then going up, and breaking bread and tasting, and having talked a long time to them, until daylight, so he departed. **12 And they brought the youth alive, and were not a little comforted. **drbo.org/chapter/51020.htm

 

[allhers]

Isa Almisry:

For those interested in Chrysostom:

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.
Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century, (Berkeley: University of California Press:1983) pp. 124-6.

That would be similar to someone today calling someone a pig or something, right?
They could mean that the person acted like an animal or
They could mean that someone was fat or
They could mean that they ate like one, etc…

 

[chosen_people]

often asserted but yet to be proven.

And the relevance of St. Chrysostom’s anti-semiticism (yes, that’s what it was).?

that’s good, since they have all that “foulness” working against them. After all, they can’t fullfill the 613 commandments in tum’ah, can they?

For those interested in Chrysostom:

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.
Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century, (Berkeley: University of California Press:1983) pp. 124-6.

I you speaking of Chrysostom’s ultimate fate?

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.

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.

 

[chosen_people]

:bigyikes: No, I had never heard of that one, do you have a link to go with the rest of it so we could read it in context so we could know what was going on that he would say such a thing??

(well, I noticed just above my post, that Isa explained it already.)

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.

 

[RobHom]

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.

There has NEVER been any justification for genocide of any people, period!

Racial bias, like any other form of bias (prejudice) is merely the result of a poisoned mind.