The Jesus Movie Gibson Should Make

The Jewish Journal ^ | 8/15/03 | David Klinghoffer

[Clintons a commie]

You'd see it in the Bible if you weren't using Luther's abridged version. By what authority did Martin "Bible Alone" Luther remove five books from the Bible?

And speaking of Luther, as long as people love to throw around accusations about the Catholic Church, how about his tract "On the Jews And Their Lies" where he advocates killing Jews and burning down Synagogues. Very inspirational stuff from the founder of Protestantism.

[Campion]

Why is Jerome wrong there but right in addressing Helvidius?

Hey, Mike, you, remember, claimed that the PVoM was unknown before AD 400. Wideawake correctly pointed out that Jerome called Helvidius' rejection of it "an innovation". Now you're changing the topic to whether Jerome's ideas about the canon ought to be taken authoritatively.

Stick to the subject, man! If you'd like to claim that Jerome was mistaken, and Helvidius' ideas were not an innovation, prove it. You might start with addressing the question of why Pope Siricius rejected Helvidius, also. Then you might also try addressing the question of why Martin Luther and John Calvin also rejected Helvidius' errors.

[Jeremiah Jr]

You're kidding, right? Jesus heavily criticized the religious leaders of his day for substituting their own man-made rules for God's law.

Mark 7

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

"This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men --the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Yeshua could be talking to the church, Christmas, Easter??

Tabernacles, Birth / Passover, The Crucifixion / First Fruits, Resurrection

And when Rabbi Sha'ul wrote to the Corinthians...

Colossians 2:16
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

...he was writing to those who observe the Feasts of The LORD. Lev. 23

How many Christian holidays fall out on the 'new moon?'

And the Sabbath (The LORD's Day) is Saturday, not Sunday.

Read the Prodigal's Son, The older brother is Judaism, the younger Christianity.

[Campion]

And the Sabbath (The LORD's Day) is Saturday, not Sunday.

Wrong. Read the Didache and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (who knew your "Rabbi Sha'ul" in the flesh). Christians switched their Sabbath observance to Sunday before the years had three digits.

[ultima ratio]

You are wrong here. Jesus opposed the Pharisaic emphasis on their own rules and regulations and interpretations over that of Sacred Scripture. He was condemning the religious leaders of his day for usurping the Mosaic Tradition, which was God's, in favor of their own man-made tradition. We've got the same problem today plaguing the Catholic Church.

[TheCrusader]

"or pretty much any Catholic doctrine developed after about 400 AD, like the perpetual virginity of Mary."

Your claim is dead wrong. Catholic doctrine is officially defined to clarify and canonize that which always was believed by the Church. The perpetual virginity of Mary, for example, was long established and believed before it became officially declared by the Church.

Old Testament 'type' of Mary, proclaiming Her perpetual virginity

(1). "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. (Ezekial 44:2)

Even an Apostle indicates Mary is immaculate and ever-virgin

(2). The Apostle St. Andrew, quoted by Abdias, expresses himself in these terms: "As the first Adam was made of the earth before it was cursed, so the second Adam was formed of a virgin earth which was never cursed" (Saint James the Great, and Saint Mark, in their liturgies - Abbe M. Orsini)

Early Church Fathers write that Mary was a perpetual virgin

(3)."But the Son of God has a Mother touched by no impurity, yet she, whom He is seen to have, had never been a bride" (Tertulian: Apology 21, 9 - circa 213 A.D.)

(4). "there is a very great difference between the rest of mortals and the Virgin, and that all she has in common with them is their nature, and not their sin". (Saint Cyprian, circa 286 A.D.)

(5). "For in thee, Lord, is no spot, nor any stain in Thy Mother" Saint Ephraem the Syrian, (A.D. 306 - A.D. 373)

(6)."You before God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, and a virgin after childbirth, and we have been reconciled with Christ God, your Son." Saint Ephraem the Syrian, (A.D. 306 - A.D. 373)

(7). "Mary (was) a bright and luminous stem, where there was never found the knot of original, or the bark of actual sin" (Saint Ambrose, circa 380 A.D.)

[ArrogantBustard]

WA >> "Jesus did not reject the oral Torah at all - he told the disciples that the Pharisaic teachers sat in Moses' seat and that their teaching should be observed.

DM >> "You're kidding, right? Jesus heavily criticized the religious leaders of his day for substituting their own man-made rules for God's law.

Someone here, it seems, has read the Bible and someone has not. Those of us familiar with the Scriptures recognise the beginning of Matt 23 when we read it. Others, apparently, do not. I quote, for general edification and education:

Matthew 23
¹ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
² Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
³ All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
⁴ For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
⁵ But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

Jesus clearly recognizes that the Pharisees have legitimate teaching authority (indeed He gave it to them), but that they do not live according to their own teachings.

[Jeremiah Jr]

Dispensation is, of course, unknown in Judaism...
Soncino Chumash

Have fun with that one!

And Rabbi Sha'ul (What Yeshua called him on the road to Damascus) outlined this in Hebrews 11.

What? No chapter and verse on The LORD's Day??

[TheCrusader]

"We've got the same problem today plaguing the Catholic Church."

If you are referring to the gradual but steady peeling away of ancient Catholic traditions by the liberals I agree with you. Our Apostolic traditions are being replaced by post-Vatican II novelties and innovations, and the price we have all paid has been a heavy one.

[DallasMike]

Someone here, it seems, has read the Bible and someone has not. Those of us familiar with the Scriptures recognise the beginning of Matt 23 when we read it.

I recognized it, of course, and I'm glad that you do, too.

So how do you square your interpretation of Matthew 23 with Mark 7, which offers a demonstration of Jesus and his disciples not obeying a teaching of the Pharisees?

Mark 7

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (emphasis added)

...

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men --the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Was Jesus contradicting what he said in Matthew 23? Since there are many more verses like Mark 7 than like Matthew 23, perhaps you need to read Matthew 23 in light of these other passages. It's obvious that Jesus promoted obedience to the teachings of the religious leaders, but only to the point that these teachings were in accordance with the scriptures. I'm all in favor of church tradition, too, but only those that do not violate the scriptures.

Break's over. More tonight.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[TheCrusader]

"Christians switched their Sabbath observance to Sunday before the years had three digits."

You are correct. But in a very real sense it doesn't matter anyway, because God asked for "a" Sabbath Day, a day of rest after six work days, and not any specific calendar day, Leviticus 23:3).

Christ endowed the Church with the authority to declare disciplines, such as which day the sabbath shall be, (Mathew 16:19). In any case, what better day to celebrate the Sabbath than the very day that Christ rose from the dead? It is the most important day that humanity could ever know.

[ArrogantBustard]

You apparently didn't read the rest of Mark 7, in which it is revealed that some of their oral teachings directly contradict written scripture, by twisting its meaning. In Mark 7, He is rebuking the Pharisees for grossly abusing their authority ... Even as in Matt 23 He is warning His followers about the Pharisees. No contradiction at all.

[AD from SpringBay]

I thought it was Pope John the 22nd, in 1316, that developed the widespread system of remitting sins by the sale of indulgences. My bad, I guess.

Be that as it may, do you really see this as something that Jesus taught - that a family member on this earth can buy someone's passage out of purgatory with a few gold coins? And, if there were any money left over, could that be stored in the Thesaurus meritorum sanctorum (Compendium of the Merits of the Saints)? You really believe that?

[Aquinasfan]

I was wrong, it was seven books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Link here.

[Aquinasfan]

I've just recently jettisoned the notion of sola scriptura and am considering converting to Eastern Orthodox (after fifteen years as non-denominational Protestant type).

And congratulations! The Orthodox Churches are very closely related to the Catholic Church. We recognize the validity of their sacraments and their clergy.

Here's a great list of links for comparing Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

[Yardstick]

I see -- thanks!

[AD from SpringBay]

The Inquisition wasn't in the business of hunting anyone, let alone Protestants. Especially since the Spanish Inquisition was founded 40 years before Martin Luther put up his flyer.

"The first question ever asked by an Inquisitor of a "heretic" was whether he knew any part of the Bible in his own tongue. It was asked in 1233 of a man who belonged to a dissident religious sect known as the Waldensians, which emphasized bible study and lay preaching; and it would be asked again of thousands of others before the course of history would render its dark implications null and void." -- Wide as the Waters by Benson Bobrick, page 11, 2001.

Luther published his stuff in the 1500s.

What exactly was the inquisition about, if not hunting heretics? And what does it have to do with Martin Luther?

[DallasMike]

You apparently didn't read the rest of Mark 7, in which it is revealed that some of their oral teachings directly contradict written scripture, by twisting its meaning. In Mark 7, He is rebuking the Pharisees for grossly abusing their authority ... Even as in Matt 23 He is warning His followers about the Pharisees. No contradiction at all.

I assure you that I'm quite familiar with the passage. I also agree with you 100% that oral teachings which directly contradict written scripture ought to be discarded.

Thanks -- you've articulated the Protestant position quite nicely.

[DallasMike]

I've just recently jettisoned the notion of sola scriptura and am considering converting to Eastern Orthodox ...

Before you do something as disastrous as rejecting sola scriptura, which most definitely was the teaching of the church for the first 3 to 4 hundred years, I suggest that you read this book. It takes modern Evangelicals to task as well as Catholics for rejecting the historical teaching of the church on the authority of scripture.

Don't forget that another word for "yardstick" is canon. Hold fast to the canon or you'll be adrift at sea.

 

[wideawake]

"The first question ever asked by an Inquisitor of a "heretic" was whether he knew any part of the Bible in his own tongue.

I'll point out first that when people use the term "inquisitor" they are normally referring to a functionary of the Spanish Inquisition.

In point of fact an "inquisitor" was a canonical term for anyone designated by a bishop (including the Bishop of Rome) to investigate some kind of irregularity.

Such inquisitors existed in the 600s and perhaps earlier. The first heretics ever questioned by clergy canonically constituted for the purpose were the Priscillianists in the 4th century.

There was an official inquisition sent to question the Catharists in the 1160s, for example - 70 years before the incident so obscurely referred to in your post.

Parenthetically, there was a group of Christians who emphasized Bible study and lay instruction at around the same time. They were called Franciscans - and they were not troubled, but officially supported by the Pope.

The Waldenses were investigated for other reasons.

What exactly was the inquisition about, if not hunting heretics?

The Spanish Inquisition was about examining whether persons accused of apostasy were, in fact, apostates.

And what does it have to do with Martin Luther?

You brought up Protestants in the first place and I pointed out that the Spanish Inquisition was created years before there were any Protestants.