co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, September 18, 2022
"Hat off" for Emeal ("E.Z.") Zwayne!
Jew Loses It When Christian Mentions Jesus!
17th Sept. 2022 | Living Waters
1:42 It so happens, and this is not "my truth" it is truth, if you are of specifically Palestinian descent, you are as much an Israelite as Ray Comfort.
Not true of all and any Arabs, for instance not Peninsula, Egyptian, Maghrebine, Lebanese, Iraqi, but it is true of Palestinians.
The main ingredient in the Palestinian population are those who lived in Roman Province Palestine when the Arabs arrived. And as a majority, they didn't so much live in cities and speak Greek as they lived like Beduins and spoke Aramaic - the main spoken language in the area 2000 years ago.
Muslim Palestinians exchanged Aramaic for Arabic within a few centuries from the Arabic or Muslim Conquest. Those who remained Christians continued speaking Christian Palestinian Aramaic to the time of the Countercrusade - that is the times of Saladin and Baybars.
4:36 Same with Catholicism : you have to study. At least in modern society.
The usual minimum for someone with a normal education level otherwise but no background in Catholicism is 1 year (perhaps 6 months some places).
In my case, it took 85 to 86 just to get started, 86 was a false start that was rebooted in early 87, I quit the boarding school and began university in september 87 and that final reboot took much of a year to May 22:nd 88 before I was a Catholic. And I had been thinking of conversion seriously since last week of 84, when I read the Christmas present written by Umberto Eco : Name of the Rose. Why then? Bc I got rid of a prejudice against the Inquisition. I had thought of Albigensians as Christians. Oh, no.
The typical fate of an Albigensian caught by the Inquisition was converting to Catholicism, which was his, or his parents' or grandparents' childhood religion. But even for those who burned, they didn't die for belief in the Bible, they didn't even believe all of Genesis 1:1 (the single first verse!).
5:42 Congratulations, belated, for your gramp's eleventy-first birthday!
Did he make a speech to friends with the surname Proudfoot?
7:07 So that they don't end up spending an eternity in Hell.
THE great concern for a certain Domingo de Guzmán (he's only one of five St. Dominic) who was a canon, that is a kind of "junior pastor" with his bishop as "main pastor" and asked his bishop, Diego of Osma, to get leave and start preaching to the poor Albigensians.
Spent hours every night praying and weeping in Church with the question "what will happen to the sinners?!"
Presumably meaning the one's he was going to meet that day : was he converting them to a life with Christ, or were they in for a hugely long and never ending torment?
8:23 It may be noted that Jews don't date Anno Domini. They are in the late 5000's after Creation, which is actually somewhat too short as a Biblical chronology, 2007 was their 5777.
So, a Jew would arguably and predictably respond that Our dear Lord split time for the Gentiles and add (what I don't agree with) "not for us!"
Let's see if that is the response ...
11:20 "bore the wrath"
A view on Substitutional Atonement which I think is wrong. When Our dear Lord was baptised, there was a dove above His head, to signify or "make visible" the Holy Ghost and there was a voice "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased" - that did not change on Calvary.
Isaias 53, verses 4 to 6 and 10 say this: Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.
Not a single mention of "wrath" here. Wounds and bruises, yes. Chastisement of our peace, yes. Our iniquity, yes. But it does not say the Father "was pouring out his wrath" on Him but that He was pleased with Him.
On a Catholic Calvary painting, we see the same three persons : the Holy Spirit, like a Dove, just over the Cross, and the Father, like an "older twin" holding His arms down to the cross beam where the Son is holding them up. And no angry expression on any of the faces.
One reason some pretend He "bore His wrath for us" is He said "why hast thou forsaken me?" - but He quoted a psalm which clearly signifies the Eucharist as fulfilment of and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. He was too tired to recite all of it, but those words are there too.
12:25 Oh, a Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament!
Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith.
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:4]
And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.
[Osee (Hosea) 2:20]
Just two out of 19 verses in the OT. One says, a just man is not just without faith, and another says Israel is not the bride of Adonai without faith. Which makes the Catholic Church, the bride with Faith, the New and True Israel.
13:53 A Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament! Mah Nishtana?!
I found 86 verses for "hell" in the OT, but that's arguably somewhat irrelevant, as that refers to Sheol, where even the good went before Jesus opened the pearly gates.
So, I changed the search. Everlasting fire definitely is about Hell in the usual Christian sense.
The sinners in Sion are afraid, trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
[Isaias (Isaiah) 33:14]
17:35 I disagree with both.
In the OT, if you said "na, I don't really like the ways of Adonai, I think Astoreth is more fun" - and it wasn't a joke or (as here) a citation - you were fit for stoning penalty.
The juridic code of Israel is not identic to the juridic code of a Catholic Christian nation, but the difference is not one of sheer opposition on principles. It's a difference of degrees of application (for instance, marital infidelity is no longer punished with stoning, see John 8 - though it took up to Justinian for Romans to realise this, but divorce and remarriage also counts as marital infidelity and such marriages are not recognised - Matthew 5:31, f), and not of opposed principles.
And yes, when the successors of the Apostles were supposed (Matthew 28:16-20) to make disciples out of all nations, it means making the governments disciples as well. So, there really are Christian states - btw, this is an issue where Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterian Calvinists traditionally agree with Orthodox and Catholics. The Thirty Years War was fought because people like Frederick V of the Palatinate - called The Winter King - and people like Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, had different ideas about what "a Christian nation" means.
The Woman I Love | Bishop Fulton Sheen
1st Sept. 2022 | Catholic 365
13:28 Other reason, noted by someone else before me, the first mention Our Lord made of His Mother ti Her at Cana, the last on Calvary ("woman, see thy son"), He is using the same noun that God used when threatening the serpent.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Even the first half is enough to know, Mary is the enemy of Satan. And since there is a difference between slave and enemy, this means, She was not a slave of Satan. This means, She was sinless from the start.
However, the adress by the angel, echoing an adress to the women Jael and Judith who had killed their enemies and crushed their heads, show that the Catholic translation of the second half is not overdoing it.
See also : Wikipedia : Élisabeth Leseur
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 12:23 PM
Labels: Catholic 365, Living Waters
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment