Posted on 02/07/2008 2:22:50 PM PST by Pyro7480
From the Italian daily Corriere della Sera:
Italian Rabbinical Assembly: "Pause for reflection in the dialogue" with Catholics
The opinion on the change of the Good Friday prayer: "An abandonment of the very conditions for dialogue"
ROME - And now, a rupture. The Italian Rabbinical Asseembly considers necessary a "pause for reflection in the dialogue" with Catholics after the modification of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
And it underlines that the modification decided by Pope Ratzinger is "an abandonment of the very conditions for dialogue". The Assembly states so in a note signed by its president, Rabbi Giuseppe Laras.
Frankly, there's nothing to debate.
I have the authority of scripture on my side.
No more so than I do ...
ROFL!!!!
You expect us to take that howler seriously?????
It is clear that Israel will be blinded so that gentiles would be saved. Verse 26 "so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written"Please continue reading Paul's (Sha'ul) letter to the Messianic
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
believers in Rome chapter 11 verses 25 - 29 as quoted above.
Well, I'm sorry about this, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is just plain wrong in saying that. In fact, that's a really impressive blooper.
In fact, Catholic Christianity was made the state religion of Rome under Theodosius the Great, almost 50 years after Constantine's death. Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about that episode:
In February, 380, [Emperor Theodosius] and Gratian published the famous edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Cod. Theod., XVI, I, 2; Sozomen, VII, 4).
That was the event that made Catholicism the state religion of Rome.
Constantine was de jure a pagan (albeit a Christian sympathizer) until he was baptized on his deathbed, so not only did he not make Christianity the state religion, he didn't even officially profess that "state religion".
Prior to Constantine there was no state religion.
You're kidding, right? I mean, you don't actually believe that ... do you? Why do you think the Christians were executed under Domitian and others? What did they refuse to do?
I'll give you the answer: they refused to renounce Christ, and they refused to honor the Emperor as a god in pagan ceremonies by burning incense to him.
The state religion of Rome under Constantine, and before him, and for a short time afterwards, was Roman paganism. In Imperial Rome, that typically included the worship of the Emperor. Not everyone was required to profess it in practice, but if the state chose to demand it, they could and did impose the death penalty for refusing to do so.
You really need to learn some actual, factual, real history of those years, from real historians and historical sources, not sectarian ministers who invent history out of whole cloth to support their theological prejudices.
Do you believe Justin when he writes this:
For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or Of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. -- Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 33.
Do you believe him when he writes this:
For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this layer, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,--namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us,--I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts? --Dialogue, Chapter 18.
Evidently, unlike Justin and the Church and the Prophet Ezekiel, you do not know for what reason sabbaths and feasts were imposed on Israel: "on account of their transgressions and hardness of heart".
ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)
When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325
Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
You'd think that after 2000 years they would figure out that we aren't going away. :)
Sunday was the new sabbath long before then. See my citations from Justin Martyr immediately above. We have also Hyppolytus of Rome, who died in AD 325. He described Sunday worship as the norm in his Apostolic Traditions.
And Constantine was not the "first pontiff of the Roman church" or any pontiff of the Roman church, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Xenia, thanks for posting what I already knew. I also thank you for once again proving that the earlier claim that Constantine established the Church (or any church for that matter) is complete bunk and you have no proof of such a thing whatsoever.
All you did was prove Constantine was in favor of Easter and rest and worship on Sunday Wow!
Now, if you would actually LOOK at the texts you posted you would realize they show that the Church ALREADY existed BEFORE Constantine ever walked the Earth.
Thanks for shooting your case in the foot and for making it so easy for me.
You wrote:
“You’d think that after 2000 years they would figure out that we aren’t going away. :)”
Figuring out things doesn’t seem to be their strong point!
You've evidently got me confused with some of your "separated (rolling my eyes) brethren". I'm not a Protestant and not of the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine. I use anything available....including historical documentation if it lines up with scripture. In this case it does because the Apostle was never in Rome. This is testified to by the absence of any mention of him being there. Scripture does tell us where he was although....and it was not Rome!
You guys are really funny. You cite non-scriptural passages freely when they appear to support your notions, but reject them as "non-scriptural" when they support the Catholic/Orthodox position. How convenient!
I don't believe I have ever proposed such a stance on these forums. What is important to me is scripture and when a Catholic/Protestant position goes against it....it is pointed out. I frequently quote the Fathers when their writings agree with scripture.....as well as Josephus, etc. For the same reason you do not see me quoting Martin Luther very much. Most of his doctrine is just regurgitated Catholicism.
IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE. Here, you will find the following passage, among several others, which establish the ministry and martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome beyond any reasonable doubt:
See! this is what I mean. Your article goes against scripture. [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The question is....was Rome Gentile? Does your little story go against scripture? Both questions are answered yes!
"St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13).
You have provided me with a fine example of what I have been writing about. I do agree that many misguided folks think this "Babylon" is a code word for Rome. Balderdash! If you would reread [Matthew 10:5-6] above you will notice that Our Lord specifically told These Twelve not to go among the Gentiles. Other disciples and the Apostle Paul were selected to evangelize the Gentiles. But your silly little traditions that go against scripture have to be spun to shore up your theology.
Now....a word from Josephus "Antiquities XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2....lines 5-6" And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.
Josephus in the first century is telling us that there are so many Israelites living in the old Babylonian empire territories that they cannot be counted! As you recall, Our Lord told THESE TWELVE (includes Peter) these are the folks they were to evangelize.....and this is why Peter says he was in Babylon. There were probably millions living beyond the Euphrates....all the way to Persia and beyond. In fact by the first century the Israelites had probably covered much of Europe and Asia.
Not even the early heretics, who hated the Papacy every bit as much as you do, had the audacity to claim that Peter was never in Rome and didn't die there.
I don't hate the Papacy....I'm amused by it. The reason I say Peter was never in Rome is because Our Lord told him not to go there! Legitimate history....as I have provided, also gives one a very legitimate reason to believe he spent much of his time elsewhere....as he was directed [John 21:15-17] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Now.....I'm certain you probably still don't see how silly your position is.....but at least some lurkers have learned a little bit about the preposterous tenants of your theology.
Something told me this would be your answer....
Yup! You're right....I misspoke. I meant to say "Prior to Constantine, Catholicism was not the state religion of Rome".
In fact, Catholic Christianity was made the state religion of Rome under Theodosius the Great, almost 50 years after Constantine's death.
Well.....it doesn't really matter when or who established it as a state religion. Here is my original statement from post #21: "your friend Constantine did that....and the Church he founded bore absolutely no resemblance to the First Century Christian Church of the Apostles. Still doesn't....and never will!"
Translation: A church/state system was founded by Constantine between the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire. Now....if you say someone else did it 50 years later....fine! It still bears no resemblance to the New Testament Church of Our Lord and His Apostles......and.... never will!
Of course not. Justin was extremely anti semitic and wanted nothing to do with what he perceived as "Jewishness". He wrote it....that's for sure, but it goes against scripture. Anyone can see that!
He still....although....never mentioned that the Apostle Peter was in Rome. Don't you think this is very odd...given the fact that he freely mentions Simon Magus and was one of the first Fathers to ostensibly write Church history? Peter being in Rome is not just a trivial matter according to your theology. He should have mentioned it.....if indeed the Apostle had ever been there. He wasn't.....and he didn't!
He.... by the way was also a Samaritan....and raised a Pagan. He converted to Christianity directly from Paganism. This may have been reason he hated the Jews so much. I again go to my old friend, Josephus: "Antiquities IX, Chapter 14, Paragraph 3" But now the Cutheans, who removed into Samaria, (for that is the name they have been called by to this time, because they were brought out of the country called Cuthah, which is a country of Persia, and there is a river of the same name in it,) each of them, according to their nations, which were in number five, brought their own gods into Samaria, and by worshipping them, as was the custom of their own countries, they provoked Almighty God to be angry and displeased at them, for a plague seized upon them, by which they were destroyed; and when they found no cure for their miseries, they learned by the oracle that they ought to worship Almighty God, as the method for their deliverance. So they sent ambassadors to the king of Assyria, and desired him to send them some of those priests of the Israelites whom he had taken captive. And when he thereupon sent them, and the people were by them taught the laws, and the holy worship of God, they worshipped him in a respectful manner, and the plague ceased immediately; and indeed they continue to make use of the very same customs to this very time, and are called in the Hebrew tongue Cutlans, but in the Greek tongue Samaritans. And when they see the Jews in prosperity, they pretend that they are changed, and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them; but when they see them falling into a low condition, they say they are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, that come from other countries. But of these we shall have a more seasonable opportunity to discourse hereafter.
There was no love lost between the Samaritans....and the Jews. You see this all through scripture after the return from Babylon. The folks living in Samaria at that time had been brought there by the Assyrian King to replace the Northern Tribes after their exile [II Kings 17:24-41] and the Jews (The Southern Tribes) resented them highly.
Sorry for taking so long....my friend. I've had a very busy day.
Sunday was the new sabbath long before then. See my citations from Justin Martyr immediately above. We have also Hyppolytus of Rome, who died in AD 325. He described Sunday worship as the norm in his Apostolic Traditions.
And Constantine was not the "first pontiff of the Roman church" or any pontiff of the Roman church, no matter how many times you repeat it.
89 posted on 02/08/2008 2:22:24 PM MST by Campion
Can Justin Martyr overrule YHvH, the creator of the universe ? You seem to believe that a mere man can overrule the creator of the universe ! Why do you reject the Word of Elohim and replace it with babbling of created beings ? Constantine was a Pontiff from Roman Paganism,
You may not want to believe the fact. Is Justin Martyr raised to level of a Prophet of Elohim ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
he convened and ruled the Council of Nicea,
thus making him the first Pontiff of the Roman church.
Constantine promugated the findings of Nicea
to the Roman church and the whole world.
quod erat demonstrandum NAsbU Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets,
who come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
All you did was prove Constantine was in favor of Easter and rest and worship on Sunday Wow!
Now, if you would actually LOOK at the texts you posted you would realize they show that the Church ALREADY existed BEFORE Constantine ever walked the Earth.
Thanks for shooting your case in the foot and for making it so easy for me.
90 posted on 02/08/2008 3:03:34 PM MST by vladimir998
Passover and Shabbat are YHvH commandments. Yah'shua celebrated Passover and Shabbat. Paganism as Satan's work had already entered the Roman church, 1683 years of anti-semitic paganism has existed since the Council of Nicea. 1683 years of hatred of Yah'shua and His Chosen People replaced with worship of gee-Zeus. Constantine the Pontiff ordered : We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews,
Sunday became the new Sabbath. They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day." Easter and Sunday worship are Pagan.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
but Constantine certified and promulgated it on all the Roman church. NAsbU Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man
Thirty-nine years later the Council of Laodicea ( rule of and by the people in Greek )
Than for one to listen to the song of fools.
circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday.
Of course, having a hissy fit because your "partner" won't alter his internal theology doesn't seem very productive to begin with.
I'd much rather Jews scold Catholics for promoting the Documentary Hypothesis!
You wrote:
“Easter and Sunday worship are Pagan.”
Which says nothing in the ways of proof about your cockeyed idea that Constantine founded a Church.
“Paganism as Satan’s work had already entered the Roman church, but Constantine certified and promulgated it on all the Roman church.”
No, actually most Christians were already worshipping on Sundays. All Constantine did was make the empire allow Sunday worship.
“1683 years of anti-semitic paganism has existed since the Council of Nicea.”
Christians are not pagans and Catholics are Christians. The only thing “anti” here is you: You’re an anti-Catholic.
Like I said before: Prove Constantine founded a Church. Prove he founded the Catholic Church. So far you have utterly failed in this task.
Christians are not pagans and Catholics are Christians. The only thing “anti” here is you: You’re an anti-Catholic.
Like I said before: Prove Constantine founded a Church. Prove he founded the Catholic Church. So far you have utterly failed in this task.
14 but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, 15 “Beware of the false prophets! Mazol Tov !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Yah'shua said: Matthew 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate;
for the gate that leads to destruction is wide and the road broad,
and many travel it;
and only a few find it.
They come to you wearing sheep’s clothing,
but underneath they are hungry wolves!
Have a nice life.
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.