Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Thank you, I’ll make sure to watch it when it comes out on DVD. I remember a National Review of it that also indicated it is worth watching.
You may infer all that, but like I said, the actual wording of the passage refers to the historical physical body of Christ in no uncertain terms right when it gets to talk about receiving unworthily. So what you say is true, but it is not the entire truth of that passage.
I do not see an evidence that Paul carried through the Jewish theology of commemorative yet distinct lambs into his Christian conversion. This passage, for sure, provides evidence to the contrary, since of course, there is but one sacrifice of Christ.
“I do not see an evidence that Paul carried through the Jewish theology of commemorative yet distinct lambs into his Christian conversion.”
Hmmm...”...when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”...”This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Commemorate:
“1. to serve as a memorial or reminder of: The monument commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
2. to honor the memory of by some observance: to commemorate the dead by a moment of silence; to commemorate Bastille Day.”
Nope! Sure no sign that Paul carried thru Passover’s memorial / reminder of / honor by observance from his Jewish roots!
< / sarcasm >
And in the previous chapter we read, “9What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?”
Did Paul teach the ‘real presence’ of the demon in the offering to the idol? No...yet he goes on and says, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”
Now, about 60 seconds of reading time later, he writes, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
So how do you get “the actual wording of the passage refers to the historical physical body of Christ in no uncertain terms right when it gets to talk about receiving unworthily”.
Why the Eucharist? “Do this in remembrance of me.” “Do this in remembrance of me.” “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
No atoning sacrifice. No physical body. Remembrance. Remembrance. Proclaim. Unite with Christ, not demons.
And what does it mean to eat without discerning the body?
“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”
The congregation is the body of Christ. Yet the Corinthians are split by factions, as though the body of Christ can be split! When they meet, they acts as individuals instead of one body. Each eats when and what he wants, and the rich humiliate the poor.
In the next chapter, Paul continues to talk about the congregation as the body of Christ, with the Spirit giving gifts as He desires, but all needing each other together.
Paul isn’t talking about the physical body of Christ, but the Church - the Body of Christ - and unity, and love, and caring for one another, and using gifts to build up the body, not the individual. When they have factions in the congregation, and treat each other shabbily, and aspire to gifts that build up the individual but not the whole, they fail to discern the body of Christ - the Church.
The Coen brothers are by far the best filmmakers today.
When will we get this years best films review from Dr Eckleburg? :)
Sure. There are Jews who are actually racially Semitic, i.e. genetically related to the Hebrews, and all other Semitic peoples. But, according to the Jewish law, you are a Jew if your mother is Jewish. The genes don't matter, be they father's or mother's! It's the mother's "Jewishness" that matters.
The mother, for all you know, could be a convert to Judaism who could be genetically completely unrelated to anything Semitic. The "Jewishness" of the mother (whatever the criteria) is somehow indelibly "imparted" to her children so they are all born "Jewish."
Is being "Jewish" an ethnic or religious or national issue? I guess, it depends what suits you (or what will give you a visa out of the country you don't want t live in).
According to the Society of Humanistic Judaism" [all emphasis are mine] "There is no single way to be Jewish..." [surprise!]. The Society affirms that "Secular Humanistic Jews encourage and support activities that promote the continued development of Jewish identity." (which by their own admission is an elusive concept). However, it all basically boils down to "a deep attachment to the state of Israel, its culture, and its people."
Furthermore, the source states "Secular Humanistic Jews make no distinction of any kind among Jews who, regardless of parentage, have chosen to identify with the Jewish people."
Yet being a Muslim or a Christian prevents you from being considered Jewish in Israel or by the Jewish Community at large. The Israeli Law of Return is a law that grants immigration rights only to the Jews without a prior naturalization process; that is – to those individuals who "fit" the official (rabbinical) definition of "Jewishness." The Law simply states that "any Jew may come to Israel and become a citizen without undergoing naturalization."
Specifically, zionism-israel.com's Ami Isseroff explains that "Israel's immigration policy is not racist or separatist. In common with many other countries, it gives precedence to its own absent nationals."
So, Israel treats Jewishness as an inherent nationality (that is a matter of choice), independent of where you were born or how many generations have passed. Others treat it as a religious affiliation, and others yet as a racial/ethnic quality. [covering all the bases, I guess...]
As for Messianic Jews, they are a periphery, embraced only by such Christian groups as the Presbyterian Church [sic] (U.S.A.) which for a long time was in "communion" with Avodat Yisrael. Messianic "Jews" are Protestants in disguise with Jewish terminology and Jewish-sounding names. Their aim, of course is to "save" as many Jews by converting them to Jeezuhs.
Jasom Baysee, a pastor of Shady Grove United Methodist Church in Providence, North Carolina, writes in The Christian Century "If there is anything about which all four branches of Judaism in the U.S. (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist) agree, it is that one cannot be both Jewish and Christian at the same time."
If you are going to be a religious (observant) Jew, you cannot worship any other God except the YHWH of the Old Testament. The Jewish messiah is not a divine person. That automatically disqualifies Jesus as a possible Jewish messiah. The idea that the messiah is a divine person is a Christian innovation that was rejected, along with all Christian books, by the rabbis in Jamnia at the end of the first century AD.
Messianic (Apocalyptic) Jews of the 2nd century BC (Pharisees and Essenes) expected a messiah to be a mortal warrior-king (there are 7 OT determined requirements for a messiah and Jesus meets only one, being Jewish). As such a messiah for the Jews is not an incarnate God-man who, together with the Father and the Spirit is worshipped and glorified. That is heresy in Judaism across all sects.
So, they cannot deny that someone "born" Jewish is Jewish by Law, but if they worship any other deity (and no, the Jews do not think Christians and Muslims worship the same God as the Jews, because then they would have to admit that Christ is God and Allah is God, which they won't!), they are no longer Jewish, but apostates no different than all the other Jews who worshipped false gods in the past.
Going down to 12 tonight, bd. Chilly!
What is the "validity of the Catholic understanding of the Sacraments?" That they are believed to take place, mystically, and ineffably? How rational is that?
I can do so based on indisputable facts that certain verses happen to be in the scripture we all (maybe you being an exception) consider God-breathed and inerrant, and on facts of history
Then it's not based on reason, but on faith that what is in scriptures is God-breathed and true. Faith is not reason; it is used as the reason for praxis. And historical reasons do not make sacramental rituals "valid." History provides valid insights into when such practices began and for what reason, but history by itself does not validate the reasons offered for understanding of sacraments. It merely makes them manifest.
It is “freezing” at 55 tonight, it will be “chilly” at 66 tomorrow, and “moderately warm” at 77 on Sunday...but 80 on Monday! :)
“It is “freezing” at 55 tonight, it will be “chilly” at 66 tomorrow, and “moderately warm” at 77 on Sunday...but 80 on Monday! :)”
That’s not nice kosta, that’s not very nice!
Not sure where you get all your proof texts from, but the few you mentioned cannot be considered all the info there is on the subject. I prefer to take people at their own word and not how some others would define them. One of my professors, Dr. Mark Cambron (now deceased), had a specific Christian ministry to the Jews in Miami, FL. You can do a search about it and he was and is not alone, by far.
As to worshipping YAHWEH/Jehovah, he IS the only true God and Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 both prophesy that the Messiah would be the Incarnate God. There are other OT verses as well, as you know, so to say the early Hebrews did not believe in a divine Messiah is simply not correct. And there are hundreds of Messianic prophesies, not just seven. Now the Muslim god, Allah, is NOT the same as YAHWEH. Not even close. To simply say it is just the Arabic word for god is to ignore the description of Allah given by Mohammed. No comparision at all. There is a reason the term Judeo/Christian is used in this country as it recognizes the worship of the one true God.
We sure are hopping all over the theology subject in this post, aren’t we?
Let the gentle reader judge:
Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11)
"this is my body, which shall be delivered for you". Do you really think it is the Church that is delivered? Neither have I ever heard the Church referred to as the "blood of the Lord".
What you preach is height of absurdity, all to obfuscate the truth of the scripture.
I don’t think you understand the distinctions between faith and reason that I made in my post.
They represent the mainstream. The state of Israel sees Messianic "Jews" as Christians.
Dr. Mark Cambron (now deceased), had a specific Christian ministry to the Jews in Miami, FL
And that proves what?
As to worshipping YAHWEH/Jehovah, he IS the only true God and Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
Sure, except that the Christian God also includes the Son and the Holy Spirit which the Jews reject, so obviously the Christian God is not the same as the Hebrew God YHWH.
Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 both prophesy that the Messiah would be the Incarnate God.
He did no such thing. That is something the Christians made up.
There are other OT verses as well, as you know, so to say the early Hebrews did not believe in a divine Messiah is simply not correct
Obviously you don't know the history of Israel. Messianic apocalypticism does not appear before the Maccabean revolt in 160 BC. All the alleged OT prophesies of the coming messiah in the OT were written either at that time (Daniel) or are misinterpreted to mean what they do not mean.
There would have been no reason to have a messiah before the 2nd century BC revolt. The Jews believed the punishment and suffering they endured was something they deserved for disobeying God and that it was all God's doing for their digressions. Why would they need a messiah for that? LOL!
There is nothing more blasphemous for Judaism than a "divine messiah."
And there are hundreds of Messianic prophesies, not just seven.
Written after the fact (as in Daniel) or misinterpreted.
Now the Muslim god, Allah, is NOT the same as YAHWEH. Not even close
Maybe you can enlighten us as to why? I am listening...
To simply say it is just the Arabic word for god is to ignore the description of Allah given by Mohammed. No comparision at all.
How so?
There is a reason the term Judeo/Christian is used in this country as it recognizes the worship of the one true God.
You are right about "this country" and nowhere else in the world, for a good reason. And the term is use only by a segment of Evangelical Christians and idiots like bill O'Reilley. The (real) Jews would never use it. The Jews think of Christians what the mainline Christians think of Mormons.
How can Judeao-Christian recognize the worship of the one true God? The Jews reject Christ as God. They literally reject the Christian God! Do you eve realize that? Probably not because you wouldn't be saying such nonsense. Now, the Christians say that they worship the same God of the OT as the Jews do, but that's obviously a one-way belief. The Jews don't share that belief and in fact are offended that we interpret their own faith and God for them.
In Judaism there is no room for other divine persons.
“What you preach is height of absurdity, all to obfuscate the truth of the scripture.”
No, it connects the scripture before and after with the scripture in between...
“But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”
[He starts his discussion of the Lord’s Supper by denying that the practice of the Corinthians even counts. There are divisions. Each goes ahead with his own meal. Some do so in such excess that they get drunk. he asks, “do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?]
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[In the previous 3 chapters, he talks about identifying ourselves with the body of Christ, rather than identifying with idols. Remember what is in Chapter 10: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”]
[Having talked about what it wrong, he now talks about the right way to take the Eucharist.]
“In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
[When they take the Eucharist, they are to do so “In remembrance” and by doing so, they “proclaim the Lord’s death...]
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.”
[Those who do what he describes in verses 18-22 should be doing what he describes in verses 23-26. If not, then verse 27 describes the result. Verse 27 doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it follows verses 17-26.]
“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
{If they do it right, and discern the body of Christ, then...]
“So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.”
Paul then spends the next 3 chapters discussing spiritual gifts, and how they are to build the body of Christ, the Church, saying, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.”
CONTEXT! We must read each verse in context! Read Augustine, if you don’t like what I write - scripture is to be read in context. Verses don’t just fall like acorns from a tree and lie independent on the ground.
You write: “”this is my body, which shall be delivered for you”. Do you really think it is the Church that is delivered? Neither have I ever heard the Church referred to as the “blood of the Lord”.”
Have you never heard the Church described as the BODY OF CHRIST? And do you not know that His flesh and blood was shed for all of us? As he discusses in the previous chapter, just as eating food sacrificed to idols identifies one with idols and demons, taking the Eucharist identifies us with Christ. We are one body in Christ - discern it, or God will judge you for the actions you take in church - which is what Chapter 11 is discussing, and that he continues to discuss in Chapters 12-14.
Its all the way up to 16 degrees, a veritable heat wave!
Mr Rogers: No, it connects the scripture before and after with the scripture in between...
With all due respect to both of you, I think you are beating a dead horse. The problem, of course, is in the emperor's (nonexisting) clothes and the fact that no one will admit the emperor is naked but pretend that everything is hunky dory. In other words, even thought NT books are at times incompatible with each other, no one will admit it (for obvious reasons).
It doesn't take a rocket (or in this case a Bible) scientist to realize that, on closer analysis, the Church used bits and pieces of the NT to formulate the doctrine (just as the heretics did), taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and discarding or ignoring those parts that did not "fit in."
It is equally clear that the Church did not formulate the Eucharistic practices based on Pauline epistles but on the Gospels, and given the inherent difference between the two trying to marry them by pretending everything is hunky dory is a lost cause.
It is equally clear that the Gospels present Jesus' body as something real, physical, edible and nutritious in the "real" or literal sense. Jesus calls his flesh "real food" and his blood "real drink" [cf John 6:55]. I mean, how much more literal does it have to get? Nowhere do the Gospels even hint at a "spiritual body" or "spiritual food." Jesus never thaught that.
It is Apostle Paul, not Jesus of the Gospels, who introduces the term "spiritual body" and the concept of a symbolic Eucharist. That's right, "spiritual body" is not to be found anywhere except in Pauline Epistles. It is yet another one of his (in)famous innovations.
Being that he is a Pharisee, I would imagine the idea of eating Jesus' flesh would have been equally revolting as it was for most of Jesus' early followers. He heard of the Last Supper and probably of the bread and fish story, and decided that for his Hellenized Jewish audiences a literal interpretation presented in the Gospels probably would have doomed his presnetation to an automatic failure. It also smacked way too much of pagan practices associated with idolatry which would be another reason to reject them form the start.
So, he reached for some Platonic tools to help him "digest" this better, since much of the character he created named Jesus Christ (rather than Jesus the Christ) already had many Platonic characteristics to begin with!
One of the reasons why Gnostics (especially Marcion) loved Paul so much (to the exclusion of practically all other NT writers!), is precisely because he favored the spiritual over corporeal. He spoke their language! Basically they believed the body was a filthy, carnal, sinful prison to which we are sent (as spirit) as punishment. Jesus and his body is pure, and heavenly, and only that which is spiritual is pure.
That was the thinking that led so many early Christians to reject Christ's body as "real" insisting it was only an illusion [this heresy is otherwise known as Docetism]. If it was an illusion, then he must have been a pure spirit who made himself only look and feel like flesh. In that case, eating his body made sense only if it was treated as spiritual food, and it was done "in the spirit" of his memory. After all, if God is spirit than he must be worshiped in spirit...[cf John 4:24]
For whatever reason, it is clear from surviving documents across the board that already by the end of the first century and especially in the second, the Christians did not receive the Eucharist as "spiritual food" but as Jesus' flesh and blood in the literal sense.
Thus, we have Ignatius of Antioch, at the turn of the century, writing to Smyrneans (all emphasis being mine):
"Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
Similarly, Justin Martyr writes in his First Apology (Ch 66, c. 150 AD):
"God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
Irenaeus, bets know for his relentless struggle against Gnostics, writes in the "Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D:
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' [note: Eph. 5:30]. He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' [note: Lk. 24:39].
Clearly, Pauline teaching to the contrary (i.e. "spiritual body" and "spiritual food") was fully rejected or, better yet, ignored.
While we don't know the exact reason why, we do know that the ex-pagan crowds that made up the bulk of early Christians by that time would not have been revolted by it. We also know that the Church was doing everything to "de-Judaize" itself and, more importantly, because the Church was engaged full time in resisting Gnostic influence (in general, and Marcionism in particular).
So, you are beating a dead horse. The Church cherry-picked what was needed to defend its beliefs and the Protestants cherry-pick theirs to defend theirs. The Gnostics cherry-picked Pauline and Johannine writings to support their beliefs, and Arians cherry-picked Synoptic Gospels to "prove" that Jesus was a "lesser" God, just as any other Christian group cherry-picks the Bible to "prove" its own man-made doctrine.
Different Churches, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, add books to the canon (i.e. Book of Enoch) to support its own flavor "orthodoxy" just as the early Christians accepted the OT deutercnaonical books based on LXX while the Protestants rejected them based on the MS. Of course, then we have the LDS, the Oneness Christians, the Messianic "Jews," and so forth, all claiming their the discern the truth...
This is all a man-made circus, cooked up in man-made religious kitchens, serving their own recipes for the potion of salvation. But keep in mind that too much spice can sometimes lead to indigestion and worse... :)
its own flavor "orthodoxy" = its own flavor of "orthodoxy"
all claiming their the discern the truth = all claiming they only discern the truth
Some of the obivous errors, apologies to all...
That's incompatible with life... :)
“That’s incompatible with life... :)”
It has warmed up to 19 as of right now and we’re heading out to the boys’ godfather’s restaurant for breakfast. No need for coats or anything with this sort of heat! :)
“It has warmed up to 19”
Well thank Copenhagen and global warming we are up to 20 now. I picked up my father this morning for breakfast, his 73rd wedding anniversary, and he said on his wedding day it was 6 below zero. I think that was more of a commentary on my mother’s parents perspective on the marriage potential.
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.