Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Telling Time By the Catholic Church
adw.org ^ | Dec 31 2009 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 01/03/2010 6:03:31 AM PST by GonzoII

But why is New Year’s January 1st and why do we call this 2010? The answers are very Catholic and Christian. I would like to elaborate a bit on what Deacon Curtis began a few days ago as we explore the relgious roots of what is perceived by most to be a very secular holiday.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.adw.org ...


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic
2010 the year of our Lord!
1 posted on 01/03/2010 6:03:33 AM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

They got the Bible from us.

They got the calendar from us.


2 posted on 01/03/2010 6:20:23 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

“They got the calendar from us.”

From the article: “As far as we know, the AD system was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in Rome in 525, as an outcome of his work on calculating the date of Easter. It was especially at the time of Charlemagne (8th Century) that the AD dating system become widespread in Western Europe. However, the calculations as to the exact year of Christ’s birth were not perfect and today, by surveying history and the data of Scripture it now seems rather more certain that Christ was born closer to what we call today 3 – 6 BC.”

Sounds like you screwed the calendar up. Didn’t do all that well on the canon, either...


3 posted on 01/03/2010 6:23:05 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You wrote:

“Sounds like you screwed the calendar up.”

I don’t see you abandoning it.

“Didn’t do all that well on the canon, either...”

The Holy Spirit did just fine, thanks.


4 posted on 01/03/2010 6:28:27 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

So sad that with all the evidence everyone has available now they csn’t figure out the man made religion they are practicing that says Good Friday to Easter Sunday is 3 days.

The TRUTH is Screaming at us and we fight against it. Just like Essau we despise our birthright.


5 posted on 01/03/2010 6:49:25 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyL
I got news for ya'. The Jews called it three days too. http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-long-was-jesus-dead-tomb And there's this: Three Days and Three Nights in the Tomb By Steve Ray “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:3840) *************************************** Skeptics claim to have discovered an error in the New Testament —claiming Jesus was not in the tomb for three full 24-hour periods like he prophesied. He was buried Friday afternoon and rose early Sunday morning.being only one full day and two nights. Has the sceptic found an error in the Bible? How does one respond? *************************************** Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” It is clear that Jesus rejects the call to perform various signs before the Jewish leaders in order to justify his claims and actions. Jesus would not give them signs, however, for he did not come primarily to be a wonder-worker but a Savior. His miracles were performed to display his power and identity and out of mercy to help the poor and sick. Jesus performed many miracles in private and with a warning not to tell others about them. Yet, one great miracle would be given as a definitive sign. This would be the “sign of Jonah,” his resurrection from the “heart of the earth.” The main problem encountered in Matthew 12:3840 involves the temporal designation “three days and three nights.” Interpreting this designation literally, some try to solve the “problem” by arguing that Jesus was really crucified on Thursday rather than Friday. A Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection do not provide sufficient time for three days and three nights. There are numerous ways of figuring out the day-night scheme for this period of time, but it is clear that three separate days and nights cannot be obtained by a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection scheme. Yet, it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath” (Mark 15:42) and raised on Sunday, the “first day of the week” (Mark 16:2). If the temporal designation of Matthew 12:40 is taken literally, a conflict does exist between the time indicated in this verse and the time indicated in the accounts of the passion story. But should the expression “three days and three nights” be interpreted literally? Three arguments indicate that it should not. First, it appears that this expression is another way of stating “on the third day” or “in three days.” This can be illustrated from 1 Samuel 30:1213. The same Greek expression is found in 1 Samuel 30:12 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) as in Matthew 12:40. Verse 13 refers to this three-day and three-night period as “three days ago” or, as the LXX literally states, “the third day today.” If “three days and three nights” can mean “on the third day,” there is no major problem in our passage. By Jewish reckoning Jesus could have been crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday, the third day. Friday afternoon = day one; Friday 6 PM to Saturday 6 PM = day two; Saturday 6 PM to Sunday 6 PM = day three.’ A second argument against a literal temporal interpretation is the fact that Matthew did not see any conflict between this expression and either a third-day resurrection (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19) or a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection scheme (Matt. 27:62; 28:1). For him, as well as for the other Evangelists, expressions such as “three days and three nights,” “after three days,” and “on the third day” could be used interchangeably. Finally, it should be pointed out that the main point of Jesus’ analogy in Matthew 12:40 does not involve the temporal designation but the sign of the resurrection. Only one miracle or sign will be given to this evil and adulterous generation. That sign will be Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. The temporal designation is much less significant. Perhaps Jesus refers to three days and three nights because this expression is found in the Old Testament passage which he wants to quote (Jonah 1:17). Understood in the context of biblical Judaism—and knowing the idioms and figures of speech in the designation “three days and three nights”—there is no problem with the Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection scheme described in the passion narratives. It is only if a twentieth-century reckoning of time is imposed or if the idiomatic nature of this temporal designation is not understood in its context that a problem appears. Since it's a PDF file I'll just link to the html site: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:cOsJavX6vA8J:www.catholic-convert.com/documents/3Days3Nights.doc+three+days+in+the+tomb%3F&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
6 posted on 01/03/2010 7:04:36 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Sheesh!

I’ll just post the links!

www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-long-was-jesus-dead-tomb

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:cOsJavX6vA8J:www.catholic-convert.com/documents/3Days3Nights.doc+three+days+in+the+tomb%3F&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


7 posted on 01/03/2010 7:06:33 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

This whole entire argument is so full of holes it’s like the sieve that Yahweh promised to put Abraham’s seed into and shake amongst the nations so that all the nations could be blessed. First of all there were TWO Sabbaths Passover week THEREFORE TWO PREPARATION DAYS. Dying on Friday and Resurrection on Sunday is STILL
not 3 days or 3 nights. Yahshua does not LIE!!!!! Haven’t you got that much figured out. If He says it but man says something different, who are you going to believe?


8 posted on 01/03/2010 8:52:17 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

They won’t listen Vlad.


9 posted on 01/03/2010 10:00:31 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

You wrote:

” Yahshua does not LIE!!!!!”

No, He doesn’t. What He did do was use Jewish convention like any Jew would.

“Haven’t you got that much figured out.”

ladyL, if your posts are anything to judge by then I have sooooo much figured out.

“If He says it but man says something different, who are you going to believe?”

God. That’s why I don’t believe you.


10 posted on 01/03/2010 11:24:00 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I know. Reason is not a Protestant thing apparently.


11 posted on 01/03/2010 11:25:10 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

He never said Easter, which is the pagan holyday to worship ISHTAR the fertility goddess. He never said CHRISTMAS, which is the pagan holyday to worship Mithra, the Sun god.
Look that up in any Encyclopedia. Then go back and study the true Holy days that God gave His people to follow throughout all the generations. Read Lev. 23

Uhmmm, hold on to your ignorance or become enlightened?
What a choice.


12 posted on 01/03/2010 11:47:47 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

LOL! I am a Lutheran, and use reason! :)


13 posted on 01/03/2010 12:19:55 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

My apologies! :)


14 posted on 01/03/2010 12:22:57 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ladyL
Mithra was not the sun god. That was Apollo or Sol Invictus.

The worship of Mithra (or Mithros) started after the first century AD. In fact reading some of the early church writings, they accuse the followers of Mithros of stealing some practices from the Church.

Celebration of Easter is more often known as Pascha in the non English or German world (Passover). Easter is not related to Ishtar, as the germans never really worship Ishtar. It comes from the old Easter services being held at dawn facing east in which the high point was the rise of the sun and celebration of the Resurrection.

I suggest you open up an actual history book.

15 posted on 01/03/2010 12:31:10 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

You wrote:

“He never said Easter, which is the pagan holyday to worship ISHTAR the fertility goddess.”

No. 1) Easter was originally about the worship of a Germanic goddess, not a Mesopotamian one. 2) So what if Christ didn’t mention it? 3) Early Protestants knew there was nothing wrong with the use of the word Easter (check Acts 12:4 in the KJV). We use pagan names for every day of the week. I don’t see any anti-Catholics getting upset about that.

“He never said CHRISTMAS, which is the pagan holyday to worship Mithra, the Sun god.”

No. Dec. 25th was that day. So, Christians, to keep their members from straying into pagan celebrations decided to celebrate Christ’s birthday on the same day. That became known as Christmas. The German scholar, Manfred Clauss, in his book The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries, even includes a quote from a monk in late antiquity that mentions exactly that. Anti-Catholics, however, usually know nothing about scholarship.

“Look that up in any Encyclopedia. Then go back and study the true Holy days that God gave His people to follow throughout all the generations. Read Lev. 23”

I already know about the Jewish holidays. I am not bound by Jewish observances since Christ released us from the Mosaic and kosher laws.

“Uhmmm, hold on to your ignorance or become enlightened?
What a choice.”

I made the choice years ago - that’s why I’m not a Protestant. Wish you knew what you were talking about.


16 posted on 01/03/2010 12:37:13 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The Days of Christmastide -- more than twelve!

17 posted on 01/03/2010 1:53:34 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

With respect to the question of Easter and Christmas, these debates actually started in the 2nd century as evidenced by the writings of St. Irenaeus in circa 180 AD who writes about Pope Victor and his arguments with a certain group in the East over when Easter should be celebrated. Eventually, the Council of Nicea in 325 would use the method used by the Church of Rome to do so. Back to how the Liturgical calander came to be.

First, The Roman pagan feast to the Unconquered Sun was not instituted until 274 AD and by that time, orthodox Catholics in the West had already been trying to come up with the date of CHristmas going back to the late 2nd century when St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing around 205 AD noted that December 25 was a likely date of Christ Birth. This was because the CHurch first tried to fix the date of Pasch/Easter [again, which can be documented in the writings of St. Irenaus and the disputes between Rome and certain Christians in Asia-Minor], which the Church throught was 25 March to April 6, using the Roman Julian Solar Calander, which was the equivalent dates to the Jewish Nissan Calander, which based on it, the likely dates of CHrist death would have been in either 30 AD or 33 AD since those were the only 2 days that Passover occurred on a Friday.

So, based on Christ Death as being between 25 March to April 6, the Church picked up on the tradition that a prophet’s Death coincided with his conception [Tertullian is one writer who attests to this tradition in the period 150 AD to 207 AD], thus the Feast of the Annuniciation was set on March 25, which was the date the Latin Church set as being his Death [later studies of the calander would put the date likely at 29 March, since the calcuations of the Julian/later Gregorian calanders have shown that 29 March 30 or 33 AD would have been a Friday, not 25 March]. THus, using this methodology, Christmas would fall on December 25 in the West and January 6 in the Eastern Church, using the March 25 to April 6 [12 day period] and moving it 9 months after.

In the Eastern Church, St. John Chrystostom reasoned 12/25 based on the following {see David Bennett article at http://www.ancient-future.net/christmasdate.html) excerpt cited in the following 2 paragraphs.:

Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth “with haste.”

The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah’s class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary’s conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus’ birth nine months afterward.

Thus, the writing of the great orthodox theologian of the Eastern Church again shows that Christians were not just following some pagan holiday. Now, when the pagan emperor Aurelius set 25 December as the feast of the unconquered Sun God, Christians just said this feast is the feast of the Son of God as the light of the world coming to quench the darkness, hence the timing of Christmas based on it being the darkest time of the year in that part of the world has significance as the Cosmos points to the coming of Christ as the Light extinquishing the darkness and thus the prophecy of Malichi 3:20 “Sun of Justice/Righeousness” is fullfilled in the person of Christ and his incarnation.

So while the Church eventually universally settled on 25 December as the feat of the Nativity of Christ, it was not necessarily set to compete against the pagan feast, instituted in 274 AD. Rather, it was to show the pagans that the Cosmos points to Christ. As Pope Benedict in his great book “The Spirit of Liturgy” (p.108) notes by citing ST. Jerome “Even creation approves of our preaching. Up to this day the dark days increase, but from this day the darkness decreases..The light advances while the darkness retreats”

So Christians setting the birth of Christ in the Winter on 25 December allowed them to point out to the pagan Romans that Christ is true “Sun of Justice” prophesized in Malichi 3:20 and that he is “the Word was God....the light of the human race, the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it....The True light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world...And the word became Flesh” (c.f. John 1:1-14; which was the Gospel text read in Christmas Mass’s in the afternoon around the Catholic world) pointing to the deep theological and Liturgical reasons why the Church, in addition to the Biblical and theologicl scholarship of the Early Church Fathers [ST. Hippolytus and ST. John Christostyom], chose 25 December as the date of Christ birth. Relatedly, the CHurch celebrates the birth of John the Baptist on 25 June for the reason “he must increase and I must decrease” (c.f. John 3:30) as from the begginning of Summer, the longest day of the year, the days are getting shorter pointing to the coming of Christ.

So, the “fundalmentalist the world is flat types” can think what they want, but the reasons for 25 December as Christmas and the date for Pasch/Easter reflect both theological study by the early Church and in fact reflect in visible ways [i.e. in the Cosmos and in the signs of the earth] the theological realities about Christ bith and his death and resurrection.

Regards


18 posted on 01/03/2010 2:14:31 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

First of all, the Leviticus holy days are not Jewish holy days God says they are HIS feast days:

(Lev 23:2 KJV) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

We were released from Moses Law but not Yahweh’s Law, which is written on our hearts. The holy feast days are Sabbaths and as such, then fall under the 4th Commandment of Yahweh’s Law therefore we are to keep them.


19 posted on 01/03/2010 8:55:20 PM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

You wrote:

“First of all, the Leviticus holy days are not Jewish holy days God says they are HIS feast days:”

They’re Jewish feasts: “Speak onto the children of ISREAL...”

“We were released from Moses Law but not Yahweh’s Law, which is written on our hearts. The holy feast days are Sabbaths and as such, then fall under the 4th Commandment of Yahweh’s Law therefore we are to keep them.”

No. A sabbath is part of God’s law for us. Jewish feasts are not. Rest is part of the Natural Law. Specific annual feasts are not.


20 posted on 01/04/2010 4:32:08 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
One of the BIG!!!! areas of confusion that has been perpetuated by tradional Christianity is that everything is JEWISH. It is NOT!!!!

There were 12 Tribes. Each tribe’s people were named after their Patriarch. If you came from Asher, you were an Asherite, from Levi a Levite, from Judah a Jew. The Apostle Paul was not a Jew. He said “I am a Benjamite” He was not a Jew. The Jews fought against Israel in a Civil War. Read 1Kings 11-17 to catch you up on the History the traditional church doesn’t deal with.
Don’t be ignorant when debating Biblical matters. You owe it to the Father to use facts.

21 posted on 01/04/2010 7:54:56 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

You wrote:

“One of the BIG!!!! areas of confusion that has been perpetuated by tradional Christianity is that everything is JEWISH. It is NOT!!!!”

What is Jewish is Jewish. I never claimed “everything is JEWISH”.

“There were 12 Tribes. Each tribe’s people were named after their Patriarch. If you came from Asher, you were an Asherite, from Levi a Levite, from Judah a Jew. The Apostle Paul was not a Jew. He said “I am a Benjamite” He was not a Jew.”

He was a Jew. He said so: “Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.” (Acts 21:39 KJV)

I suggest you study scripture more. St. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin. That didn’t stop him from being a Jew - far from it, it necessitated that he be a Jew.

“The Jews fought against Israel in a Civil War. Read 1Kings 11-17 to catch you up on the History the traditional church doesn’t deal with.”

(sigh) Israel split into two competing states (Israel in the North and Judah in the South) more than 800 years before Saul (Paul) was born. By the time Saul/Paul was born, the word ‘Jew’ was used for people who followed what we would call Judaism no matter where they lived in the Roman world. I not only know the history of all of this apparently better than you do, but I also know scripture well enough to know St. Paul called himself a Jew - something you apparently did not know.

“Don’t be ignorant when debating Biblical matters. You owe it to the Father to use facts.”

I did. Here’s a fact: St. Paul called himself a Jew. Deal with it.

I suggest you study more before you continue to embarrass yourself by projecting an apparent lack of knowledge onto others who actually know what they’re talking about.

M’kay?


22 posted on 01/04/2010 8:17:44 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Here is just one of thousands of exerpts off of web pages when you Google in Easter Ishtar. Have no idea where you are getting your misinformaion from. Cite Sources.
Info below comes from Lew White’s book Fossilized Customs

EASTER EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK FOSSILIZED CUSTOMS — pgs. 12-14

This word has been adopted from Pagans as an attempt to “inculturate” by syncretism a behavior that is absolutely an abomination. If you recognize “Halloween” for what it is, then this will be no different after you learn the truth. Easter was already one of the two biggest celebrations observed by Pagans, long before Christianity came along. It is my belief that when this is exposed, it will fulfill the prophecies of Revelation 18. Go read it now. Babylon is still with us, but it is going to fall. Easter was celebrated by the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, and the Philistines (Goliath no doubt had an Easter basket). You should look up “Easter” in a Webster’s Dictionary, and do further research in other sources! This festival involved the “Rites of Spring” near the Equinox of Venus, when Pagans believed the Earth Mother was impregnated by the sun. They engaged in ritual sex acts, and used symbols of fertility like eggs, rabbits, and “hot cross buns”. The Babylonian symbol for the “female” was, and is, a circle with a crux beneath. The round cakes were baked for the “Queen of Heaven” (Regina Coeli), and “Great Mother” (Magna Mater), with the “cross” symbol indicating the female. The cross also indicated the Equinox, when the Earth’s orbit “crossed” the celestial equator. Hold on now, because everything will be just fine. This must sound so wild you may think I’m a heretic; but by the end of this you will be very glad to have acquired the truth. This book will only shatter myths, not the “rock” of truth.


23 posted on 01/04/2010 8:43:39 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

This type of “reasoning” is exactly why the House of Israel was judged and scattered, never to be a nation again until her punishment was completed. Read Hosea he will tell you what happened all because Israel MIXED with the pagans and their worship practices. And here we are today with your kind of “reasoning”. Brought judgement before and sure is going to bring judgement again.


24 posted on 01/04/2010 8:54:14 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

Wish you would use the Bible and scripture for your “reasonings” and not man’s ideas. See why I said “man made” religion. Just give me good old Biblical, scriptural religion anyday. Oops! can’t make any money off of it. No wonder there is not to many that go to the church of Bible only.


25 posted on 01/04/2010 8:58:01 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ladyL
He never said Easter, which is the pagan holyday to worship ISHTAR the fertility goddess.

Not it isn't. Easter is the Christian celebration of the Resurrection of Christ...and thus clearly not pagan.

He never said CHRISTMAS, which is the pagan holyday to worship Mithra, the Sun god.

No it's not. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ....again, decidedly not a pagan holiday.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

26 posted on 01/04/2010 9:00:28 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; ladyL

Petronski,

You wrote:

“Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?”

I have no idea if she believes in the Trinity, but she doesn’t believe in the Bible. In the Bible, St. Paul said he was a Jew. ladyL doesn’t believe Paul was a Jew even though he said he was. Thus, ladyL doesn’t believe God’s Word.


27 posted on 01/04/2010 10:44:21 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

ladyL

I think my post did integrate the Scriptures with how the early Church Fathers and theologians interpreted those scriptures. And you can have whatever you want with respect to your “good old Biblical scriptural religion” it is just I don’t accept your “personal infallible interpretation”.

tsk, tsk


28 posted on 01/04/2010 1:20:02 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

“Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.” (Acts 21:39 KJV)

Have you looked at that verse yet ladyL? You do have a Bible, right?


29 posted on 01/04/2010 5:01:26 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

You wrote:

“Info below comes from Lew White’s book Fossilized Customs”

After examining Lew White’s viciously stupid anti-Catholic website, I can only conclude he’s a moron.

http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/excerpt.htm

I wonder if he knows St. Paul was a Jew.


30 posted on 01/04/2010 5:11:37 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
(Phil 3:4 KJV) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

(Phil 3:5 KJV) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

If you knew the Bible you would know that each tribesman was called by their tribe's name. Paul was a Benjamite. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses were NOT JEWS!!!! Keep digging but dig a little deeper. The Truth is calling you'll find it.

31 posted on 01/04/2010 11:39:51 PM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Vladimir, you have exhibited name calling and arrogance throughout our exchange. God hates the haughty and proud.
I would hope you come under conviction for your arrogancy. It will not bode well for you. To keep you from abusing yourself anymore than you have I must cease any further communication with you. May Yahweh help you through this time.


32 posted on 01/04/2010 11:54:08 PM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

33 posted on 01/05/2010 1:27:21 AM PST by narses ('in an odd way this is cheering news!'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

Good history of the date!

Facts always help - except in the case of those too blind to see them. Sometimes there’s not much one can do to help these people, but it’s good to try in any case.


34 posted on 01/05/2010 3:33:41 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

St. Paul was a Jew:

Others recognized him as Jewish (Acts 16:20): “And they brought them to the judges and said, “These men are Jews. They are throwing our city into confusion.”

And he said it himself:

Galatians 2:15, “We are Jews by birth, and not sinners from among the Gentiles”

Acts 21:39: “Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city.”

Yet, despite the truth, you write, “If you knew the Bible you would know that each tribesman was called by their tribe’s name. Paul was a Benjamite. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses were NOT JEWS!!!!”

I know full well what tribe Paul was from. And he was still a Jew. He called himself a Jew.

Now, on to your other post:

“Vladimir, you have exhibited name calling and arrogance throughout our exchange.”

Really? Only me?

In post #12 you wrote: “Uhmmm, hold on to your ignorance or become enlightened? What a choice.”

In post #21 you wrote: “Don’t be ignorant when debating Biblical matters. You owe it to the Father to use facts.”

So, it seems to me I only gave you what you gave me. Does your own medicine bother you, ladyL?

And you wrote:

“God hates the haughty and proud.”

Read over your own comments and tell me who is haughty and proud.

“I would hope you come under conviction for your arrogancy.”

Would you recognize your own?

“It will not bode well for you. To keep you from abusing yourself anymore than you have I must cease any further communication with you.”

LOL! In other words, you can’t deal with the fact that you didn’t know the Bible well enough to know that St. Paul called himself a Jew, right? Run away, ladyL, run away! Just ignore Acts 21 like it didn’t exist.

“May Yahweh help you through this time.”

He already did. That’s why I know about Acts 21:39. Did He help you to deal with that verse yet?


35 posted on 01/05/2010 7:30:17 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

Of course Paul was a Jew.


36 posted on 01/05/2010 8:51:19 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

“Easter was already one of the two biggest celebrations observed by Pagans, long before Christianity came along.”

Oh, for corn’s sake. How strange is it that human beings should have festivals in the spring, when things begin to turn green and the weather is friendly?

It doesn’t really matter when we commemorate the Resurrection, so long as we do.


37 posted on 01/05/2010 8:40:30 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Last I checked, 2/3 of the Bible (the Old Testament) was written by Jews before Christ, and the other 1/3 by the Apostles after Christ--NONE of which are the organization of the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership of the Church universal was NOT based in Rome when the New Testament was authored, rather in Jerusalem (check Acts 15, that's in the New Testament). You might also note there, that James, not Peter, was the leading Apostle at that time (about AD 50).

As far as formally RECOGNIZING (and recognizing is very different than CREATING) the books we know as the New Testament, in the 3rd and 4th Century, yes Rome had a large part--but, the Orthodox (making up 4/5 of the Church then) were also the major part of the Church universal at that time--and the Bishop of Rome was not recognized as the supreme head of all the Church either.

It's the worst kind of revisionist history to claim the Roman Catholic Church created the Bible. It's analogous to saying the Supreme Court "created" the U.S. Constitution--when they are only supposed to recognize, and uphold it.

38 posted on 01/05/2010 9:26:44 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

You wrote:

“Last I checked, 2/3 of the Bible (the Old Testament) was written by Jews before Christ, and the other 1/3 by the Apostles after Christ—NONE of which are the organization of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Actually Christ founded the Catholic Church. All the Apostles were bishops in it and served Christ through it.

“Leadership of the Church universal was NOT based in Rome when the New Testament was authored, rather in Jerusalem (check Acts 15, that’s in the New Testament).”

Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter where the leadership was. The leader, St. Peter, settled eventually in Rome - as even many Protestant scholars agree.

“You might also note there, that James, not Peter, was the leading Apostle at that time (about AD 50).”

No, he was not. I realize that most Protestants understand scripture too poorly to actually understand what is said in Acts 15.

“As far as formally RECOGNIZING (and recognizing is very different than CREATING) the books we know as the New Testament, in the 3rd and 4th Century, yes Rome had a large part—but, the Orthodox (making up 4/5 of the Church then) were also the major part of the Church universal at that time—and the Bishop of Rome was not recognized as the supreme head of all the Church either.”

Actually he was. There was no “Orthodox Church” or “Orthodox Churches” as if they were separate from the Catholic Church. Not even the Orthodox claim that.

“It’s the worst kind of revisionist history to claim the Roman Catholic Church created the Bible.”

Catholics wrote the New Testament - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Catholics decided - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - what books belonged in the canon. That’s not revisionism. That’s just history. No other church can make these claims. And no Protestant sect would be in its existence for many centuries yet.

“It’s analogous to saying the Supreme Court “created” the U.S. Constitution—when they are only supposed to recognize, and uphold it.”

No, it is not analogous to it. The Holy Spirit inspired Catholic writers of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to decide on the canon. The Supreme Court did not write the Constitution but Catholics did write the New Testament. The Supreme Court did not decide what was part of the original constitution, but the Catholic Church did decide the canon.


39 posted on 01/06/2010 7:30:32 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Hmmm...in the Torah Yahweh says if you don’t keep His Passover on the 14th of Nissan you will be cut off from Israel. Seems his appointments are very important to Him.
Oh by the way Nissan 14 is the date of the Crucifixion. Happened Wednesday when they crucified Yahshua. He rose on First Fruits, 3 days/3nights. In fact Yahshua fullfilled the 4 Fall Feasts to the day and now we are waiting for Him to fulfill the 3 remainin Fall Feasts. And yes, the Father gives the exact time and the exact way to keep HIS FEASTS not the Jewish Feasts Scripture specifically says they are
YAHWEH/GOD'S FEASTS. Best be gettin about your Father’s business the right way:) He sure got mad at His people when they did pagan things. Killed a lot of them. Uh OH
40 posted on 01/10/2010 8:52:53 AM PST by ladyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

“So sad that with all the evidence everyone has available now they csn’t figure out the man made religion they are practicing that says Good Friday to Easter Sunday is 3 days.”

Friday is the first day, Saturday is the second day, Sunday is the third day.

It doesn’t say, “After 72 hours have passed.” It says, “On the third day.”


41 posted on 01/10/2010 4:48:34 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ladyL

“Hmmm...in the Torah Yahweh says if you don’t keep His Passover on the 14th of Nissan you will be cut off from Israel. Seems his appointments are very important to Him.”

Okay. There is no such specification commanding that Easter and Christmas be celebrated on certain days.


42 posted on 01/10/2010 4:50:22 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Catholics wrote the New Testament - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's not a biblical view...That's a Catholic view...I find it no more reasonable that the view the Mormons hold, or the muzlims...

And since there is nothing in your religion that resembles what we read in the scriptures except where it applies to the Pharisees, a scripture believer would have no choice but to reject your claim as well as the other religions who claim to be the 'real' church...

43 posted on 01/10/2010 9:10:34 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“That’s not a biblical view...That’s a Catholic view...”

They’re one in the same.

“I find it no more reasonable that the view the Mormons hold, or the muzlims...”

Are you sure you’re equipped to judge what is reasonable?

“And since there is nothing in your religion that resembles what we read in the scriptures except where it applies to the Pharisees, a scripture believer would have no choice but to reject your claim as well as the other religions who claim to be the ‘real’ church...”

Your fanciful statement reflects the beliefs of anti-Catholics only. It doesn’t reflect the beliefs of even other Protestants. It certainly doesn’t reflect the beliefs of thousands of Protestant ministers who have become Catholic after intensive Bible study. They know the scriptures better than you do. They’re also reasonable.


44 posted on 01/11/2010 4:54:49 AM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Your fanciful statement reflects the beliefs of anti-Catholics only. It doesn’t reflect the beliefs of even other Protestants. It certainly doesn’t reflect the beliefs of thousands of Protestant ministers who have become Catholic after intensive Bible study.

I don't think so...What they do is take up a theological study which leads them away from the truth of the scriptures...Of course bearing in mind that many who study the theology end of it are more than happy to be non-Catholic...

I realize of course that you will likely say that the study of theology is the same as the study of the scriptures...And you'd be right...But those that study the scriptures compared to those who make a study of (about) the scriptures quite often come up with different views of what the scriptures say...

I think it's safe to say that those who have switched to your religion didn't belieleve the scriptures in the first place...It appears they wanted to become the authority instead of letting God be the authority in and of the scriptures...They instead went on to study your religion, so-called church fathers and apparently were taken by the appearance of religion...

I have often wondered how they figured God called them to lead a flock of sheep in one religion and then God called them again to abandon that flock of sheep to lead a different flock in a different religion...Of course I know the answer, many of us do...

45 posted on 01/11/2010 6:01:48 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson