Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As long as they burn people who use the Bible to propogate Joyce Meyer theology. I’m cool with that. It worked with the Anabaptists.
If you ever wanna work undercover, I could probably get you into the Black Mafia Vatican Jesuit Assassins Society. You would be perfect because as a non-Catholic nobody would ever believe you’re working for the POPE. Too bad we lost Alberto Rivera.
 
You BETCHA! I mean that horrible, works-based salvation scheme I have embraced through my rule of life actually REQUIRES that I read the thing EVERY SINGLE DAY! Shhhh. Don’t tell the Jesuits! They BURN people at the stake for reading the Bible, you know.
Yeah, I know - my Jesuit spiritual director insists that I read Scripture for an hour first thing every morning, and I know it’s because he just wants an excuse to burn me at the stake. 😛

(Is that a black helicopter I hear, over my house? :eek: )
 
Yeah, I know - my Jesuit spiritual director insists that I read Scripture for an hour first thing every morning, and I know it’s because he just wants an excuse to burn me at the stake. 😛

(Is that a black helicopter I hear, over my house? :eek: )
Since we haven’t heard from her in awhile, I’m taking it that it was.😃 😛
 
If you ever wanna work undercover, I could probably get you into the Black Mafia Vatican Jesuit Assassins Society. You would be perfect because as a non-Catholic nobody would ever believe you’re working for the POPE. Too bad we lost Alberto Rivera.
Awesome…can I go by “Blade: Gnostic Hunter?”
 
The OP is as absurd as stating that the US Constitution (or Declaration of Independence for that matter) is/are not American works as the authors were born English and subjected to the English crown.
 
I understand your point is. I could be wrong, though, but I haven’t seen any shrines set up for the veneration of the Bible. Just to be fair (like I ever am) 🙂
Veneration of scripture would not be a problem, as it is not worship. So many, not knowing the difference, cannot tell the difference.
 
I understand your point is. I could be wrong, though, but I haven’t seen any shrines set up for the veneration of the Bible. Just to be fair (like I ever am) 🙂
No official shrines for mamon either, but it is SURELY worshipped.😦
 
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.
The only thing that genetics have proven is that modern Jews originate in the Middle East and are related to Palestinians. The Edomites were a Middle Eastern people (of mixed Canaanite, Arab, and Hebrew ancestry) and even modern Palestinians claim descent from Esau.
“Edom is in Modern Jewry.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, vol. 5, p. 41)
“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.’”
(The Jewish Almanac, Compiled and Edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3.)
 
:o
:rotfl: Typical. If someone disagrees with you that means they are an
'Anti-Semite". :rolleyes:
No. Only that the people who claim the things you do about Jews despite overwhelming scientific and historical evidence to the contrary, do so for specific reasons and motivations.
 
And you had been doing so well, too! Actually, It is truer to say that the similarity is invented, in denigration of Catholicism. We cannot remove your Freedom! to do that.

Please read the differences here:
newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
If you were an Old Testament Israelite, shortly after the Exodus, and were found in a tent with a statue of the recently departed Moses, with candles around it, offering requests for prayer, Joshua would not have been able to tell the difference and would’ve clubbed you post haste 😉
 
:o

No. Only that the people who claim the things you do about Jews despite overwhelming scientific and historical evidence to the contrary, do so for specific reasons and motivations.
As I said before, the only thing science proves about the Jews is that they come from the Middle East, and the historical evidence is in agreement that Modern Jews descend from Esau rather than Jacob, here are some Jewish sources that prove it:
“Edom is in Modern Jewry.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, vol. 5, p. 41)
“John Hyrcanus conquered the whole of Edom and undertook the forced conversion of its inhabitants to Judaism (Joseph., Ant. XIII, 9, 1). Thenceforth the Edomites became a section of the Jewish people.”
(Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, (1971), p. 378; The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (1977), p. 589).
“Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem 20,000 Idumeans appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the Zealots who were besieged in the Temple.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. V. (1904), p. 41).
“Hasdai ibn Shaprut, who was foreign minister to Abd-al-Rahman, Sultan of Cordova, in his letter to King Joseph of the Chazars (about 960 AD) … speaks of the tradition according to which the Chazars once dwelt near the Seir Mountains.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, (1905), p. 3).

The ‘Seir Mountains’ are none other than the original land of Esau-Edom - ‘Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom’ (Genesis 36:8) The Seir mountains were the home of the Edomites for nearly a millennium (The Edomites arrived in Edom or Seir at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 13th century B.C. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, p. 372)

Thus we have it from Jewish sources that the Khazars originally ‘dwell near the Seir Mountains’ so are of Edomite stock. There is evidence that in the 6th century BC, some of the Edomites fled their homeland of Seir and migrated north, “After the fall of Jerusalem, in 586 BC, the Edomites began to press northward” (Ezekiel 36:5).
 
If you were an Old Testament Israelite, shortly after the Exodus, and were found in a tent with a statue of the recently departed Moses, with candles around it, offering requests for prayer, Joshua would not have been able to tell the difference and would’ve clubbed you post haste 😉
But see, that’s exactly the point. This isn’t the Old Covenant. The Incarnation changed that. God became man, meaning that for the first time, we could see Him physically here on earth. “By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new economy of images.” CCC 2131. “The veneration of sacred images is based on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God.” CCC 2141. The very reason why it’s now permissible to depict holy images is because we *aren’t * “an Old Testament Israelite shortly after the Exodus.”
 
There isn’t one. The difference is invented.
Read St. John’s Defense of the Holy Icons (St. Vladimir seminary press in NY(?) has a readable/enjoyable) addition. He has plenty of patristic and scriptural witness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top