WHEN THE POPE KISSED THE KORAN

TCR News ^ | Stephen Hand

[NYer]

When the Pope Kissed the Koran

By Stephen Hand

Back in 1999, on the 14th of May, according to the Patriarch of the Chaldeans, at the end of an audience between the Pope and some delegates of the Islamic Shiite and Sunni factions, the Pope bowed as “a sign of respect” toward a copy of the Koran which was presented to him as a gift. When the book was officially “presented to him,” the Pope, perhaps a bit perplexed concerning the appropriate protocol for such an official gesture, kissed it; again, as a “sign of respect toward the 34 million followers of Islam”. The event was reported by the Fides news service. It turned out to be more controversial a sign than the Pope and Vatican ever expected, since both Neomodernist and Integrist reactionaries pounced on it. The former to suggest that all religions were essentially one, and the latter to suggest that the Pope had, well, er, left the Faith.

Both, of course, were utterly wrong, and both---who are temperamentally and psychologically joined at the hip in not a few ways---refused to look long at the Church’s actual teachings, the texts which clearly explain what the Church’s attitude toward other religions is-----and is not.

It is the reaction of the latter which concerns us here.

Every religion, sadly, has its Pharisees, the ones who are more royal than the king, the (only) “true” believers. It is an attitude, a psychological type, which comes in degrees of severity and is tied up with legalism, a preference for the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. What the Taliban is to Islam, Integrism approximately is to Catholicism.

Pharisees, thinking themselves the only true observers of the law, love to debate, to bait and trap the unwary victim, as they tried to do with our Lord on many an occasion. This attitude finds its logical completion in the Essenes who broke off entirely from the Temple (unlike Jesus, His Mother and St. Joseph) and fled to the desert proclaiming themselves the true temple, the remnant of Israel. They are, it is obvious, seldom aware of the pride which feeds such behavior or the logs in their own eyes.

In Catholicism, if the Neo-modernists are the Saducees, i.e., the rationalists who tend to doubt articles of Faith, then the Integrists are very clearly our modern Pharisees, the ones who fancy themselves the true interpreters of the “fathers” and of the letter of the law.

The Pharisee wants an easy, hyper-logical world, a world of airtight Yes-No compartments, where people are either “in” or “out”. In Our Lord’s day they considered Jesus lax with sinners and heathen, dubious in doctrine, fickle regarding the inviolable law. They viewed him with suspicion and ultimately felt he had to be removed altogether. They preferred a religion where the question of the "spirit," or the heart of the law----the ultimate telos / goal to which the law tends----was not welcome, despite the warnings of the major and minor prophets. For the Pharisee it is easy: The woman sinned against her husband? Stone her. The Pope kissed the Koran? Throw him out, follow the law. Such is the spirit of the Pharisee, then and now.

The Pharisee is more comfortable with executing judgment than mercy which is considered a complicating factor. He prefers a simple world where one always knows what to do. That makes debating easier; and our modern Pharisee loves to debate. He wakes up in the morning and aims straightway for the computer to either engage the debate or aid his fellows in it. His religion often exists in chat rooms or on email lists where he seeks to draw the first blood. Mercy is like an ‘X’ in the equation of justice and makes the Pharisee uncomfortable. Just the same with love and the kind of religion as described in Isaiah 58 or Matt 5-7. Such concepts complicate their neat rule book (though most of these guys have never been trained in Catholic theology and hermeneutics).

The Pope Kissed the Koran

The Pope kissed the Koran. Our new version Pharisee immediately salivates. He is ready to pounce and add such an indictable emblem to his files. And what does it prove? That the Pope is a secret Muslim maybe? That the Pope doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ maybe? That the Pope is a relativist, perhaps? A syncretist for sure? That all religions are one in the Pope’s mind? The Pope also kisses the ground upon landing in various countries on pastoral visits. A secret pantheist?

The Pope, of course, teaches the very opposite everywhere. The facts are well known, if one would take the time to learn. Yet the Pharisee has a penchant for turning ones eyes from anything that will reveal his opinion to be an absurdity. Even authoritative texts matter little if they can be simply brushed under the rug of bigotry.

Yet facts are stubborn. The gesture of the Pope by no means indicates syncretism, relativism, or anything of the sort. Cynical Integrists simply seek to make hay of it, as they do of everything else. It is the way of the Pharisee. That way they sell their papers to the gullible. They would rather not believe that the kiss was merely a gesture, as one would bow before a king, or a President, or even kiss the Pope’s ring. They would rather put the worst and most absurd construction on it, like with everything else. Had they been there they would have sent the Three Wise Men---heathens---packing; the Roman Centurion whom our Lord helped too (pagan). And the good Samaritan would have been viewed very simply as a dismal heretic. I know rigroist Feeneyites who must first baptise (in their minds) the good thief on the Cross before they will concur with our Lord's pronouncement concerning him. Legalism...

I adduce the following texts, from innumerable others, not for debate, but to show those confused by them that the Pope’s teaching is nothing like the accusations and framing of the Integrists.

For the Holy Father, dialogue does not substitute for evangelism/mission, but is a part of that mission of evangelism, divorced from neither love nor truth.

The emphasis is mine throughout below.

NOSTRA AETATE

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

From Redmptoris Missio:

55. Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions . This mission, in fact, is addressed to those who do not know Christ and his Gospel, and who belong for the most part to other religions. In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain "gaps, insufficiencies and errors."(98) All of this has been given ample emphasis by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, without detracting in any way from the fact that salvation comes from Christ and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization.(99)

In the light of the economy of salvation, the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. Instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes . These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness ; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable

CDF’s Dominus Iesus: See CDF document here

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

6. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.

7. ...Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

Most critical to our concern:

8. The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.23

The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”.25 These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.26

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

It is very clear, then, that neither the Pope nor Vatican II promotes doctrinal relativism, much less syncretism. This is why the neo-modernists consider the Pope a veritable inquisition. They can read. Yet the joyless Integrist can be counted on to always put the worst possible construction on any event or text (even if they usually prefer to simply ignore than compare texts). Thus they alleviate some of their anxiety for airtight security, even if it means fleeing from the vulnerability and suffering of the cross in our time. The Integrist is never so gleeful as when in [the diversion of] debate. Those of us who have known them intimately consider this one of their most striking and constant characteristics. To debate them is to feed their pride. Better to sincerely pray for them often. It is tragic beyond words when truth itself is inconsequential to the act of debating.

The Church, then, rejects nothing which is good, true or holy in other religions, but condemns all syncretistic theology as it did with Frs. Anthony de Mello's and Tissa Balasuriya's writings; see also the CDF's warnings to the bishops of India regarding syncretism and erroneous christologies; also its warnings about eastern meditation, etc.

---

[ET(end tyranny)]

I thought this thread was already IN the religion forum.

As you can see I have already posted from the Catholic encyclopedia.

And while I know what the church says... I also know what the bible says. And it doesn't seem that we need hocus pocus to interpret was is clearly written.

Much as the catholic church tried to write James the Just out, there IS enough left in Galatians and Acts to determine that James took over the role, that Jesus held, after the crucifixtion.

[ET(end tyranny)]

And thanks for keeping the thread in the religion forum.

[Elsie]

God rewards good and punishes evil deeds. He is merciful and is easily propitiated by repentance. The punishment of the impenitent wicked will be fearful, and the reward of the faithful great. All men will have to rise from the dead and submit to the universal judgment. The Day of Resurrection and of Judgment will be preceded and accompanied by seventeen fearful, or greater, signs in heaven and on earth, and eight lesser ones, some of which are identical with those mentioned in the New Testament. The Resurrection will be general and will extend to all creatures — angels, jinns, men, and brutes. The torments of hell and the pleasures of Paradise, but especially the latter, are proverbially crass and sensual. Hell is divided into seven regions: Jahannam, reserved for faithless Mohammedans; Laza, for the Jews; Al-Hutama, for the Christians; Al-Sair, for the Sabians; Al-Saqar, for the Magians; Al-Jahim, for idolaters; Al-Hawiyat, for hypocrites. .

.

.

.

While the damnation of all infidels will be hopeless and eternal, the Moslems, who, though holding the true religion, have been guilty of heinous sins, will be delivered from hell after expiating their crimes.

Golly! This sounds kinda similar to something ELSE I've read...........

[eastsider]

James took over the role, that Jesus held, after the crucifixtion.

If one holds that Christ Jesus was head of the apostles before the crucifixion, one must also hold that Jesus, not James, was head of the apostles after the crucifixion. Unless, of course, one doesn't believe that Christ Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Cf. Hebrews 13:8).

[ET(end tyranny)]

And if one wants to hold to the belief that Peter is the rock, is to go against scripture.

It is quite clear the role that James played after the crucifixion. Peter was subserviant to James. You can stick with the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I'll stick with scripture.

For something to be true in the NT, it has to be verifiable in the OT. Since God is the rock, Peter can't be, because Peter is NOT God!!!

[eastsider]

It is quite clear the role that James played after the crucifixion.

Sure is. He was an apostle, but not head of the apostles. Since God is the rock, Peter James can't be, because Peter James is NOT God!!!

[ET(end tyranny)]

Now, YOU'RE putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said that James was the rock! LOL God is the rock, not James, not Peter. James was the authority, which made sure that the true gospel was preached and not a variation.

Nice try though......

[MagnusMat]

I disagree with you here. A person who believes in "one" God versus "many" Gods or "no" God is a big difference. Wouldn't you agree that Muslims and Christians have more in common than Christians and atheists? Here we share the whole notion of transcendence, an objective order, salvation, similiar moral codes, and on and on.

[eastsider]

James was the authority which made sure that the true gospel was preached and not a variation.

The authority for the true gospel after the Crucifixion was the same authority as before the Crucifixion: God, the Rock. Not James.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Agreed. God is the rock.

[eastsider]

We agree as to the general sense in which God is the Rock. As to the specific instance in which Jesus -- Son of God, the Rock -- said to Simon son of Jonah, "You are Rock and on the same rock I will build my church," we disagree. IMO, that disagreement is symptomatic of a far more radical disagreement between us concerning our respective Christologies, but I'm content to leave it at that.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Ishmael knew the God of Abraham and had the faith of Abraham.

Did he? God doesn't seem to acknowledge Ishamel in that manner.

The following verses have something in common:
God doesn't mention Ishamel, of whom the Arabs are descended. Ishmael is the 'other' branch. The abominable branch perhaps???

Exodus 2:24
And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Exodus 3:6
Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Exodus 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Exodus 3:16
Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

Exodus 4:5
That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.

Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Exodus 6:8
And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

Exodus 33:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

Leviticus 26:42
Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Numbers 32:11
Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me:

Deuteronomy 1:8
Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

Deuteronomy 6:10
And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,

Deuteronomy 9:5
Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Deuteronomy 9:27
Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:

Deuteronomy 29:13
That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Deuteronomy 30:20
That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Deuteronomy 34:4
And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

2 Kings 13:23
And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.

[man of Yosemite]

If you read Genesis 21:14-20, Ishmael was praying unto the God of Abraham when He and Hagar had run out of water. God said, "fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. The scripture goes on to say that "God was with the lad."
Where was Ishmael? He was a short distance away from Hagar, but he was in a place of faith, for God heard his prayer.
Jethro, the priest of Midian, was a descendant of Abraham by his wife Keturah. Jethro instructed Moses wisely and offered a burnt sin offering when Israel had departed Egypt. The faith of the offering of blood for sin had to have been passed down from Abraham. They may not have been in the lineage from which the nation Israel, and the promised Messiah would come, but that doesn't mean they were without faith. How could the scripture say that God was with Ishmael, if he was outside the covenant with God? Ishmael was circumcised by Abraham in Genesis 17:23; bearing the sign of the covenant. In any case, the faith that now saves is open to any person of any nationality who will put his trust in the sin offering of Jesus Christ, who shed the blood of atonement which all other sin offerings only shadowed.

[ET(end tyranny)]

In any case, the faith that now saves is open to any person of any nationality who will put his trust in the sin offering of Jesus Christ, who shed the blood of atonement which all other sin offerings only shadowed.

In any case, the faith that now saves is open to any person of any nationality....

Actually salvation come by 'the way' it always has. By following God's commandments. It is true though that it comes tho those of any nation, and ANY faith, AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW GOD'S COMMANDMENTS. God doesn't change.

Genesis 26
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

Take a look at these two verses:

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

As it is written. To what does Paul refer?

Isaiah 59
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Do you notice the difference?

[man of Yosemite]

Under the new covenant we are told to walk by the Spirit and then we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. God expects our lives to be transformed by our being born of the Spirit. The entrance into this relationship is faith in Christ; our obedience comes from a new relationship of righteousness in Him. Paul reminded the Galatians that their Spirit-filled life, and the miracle working power in their midst came from faith apart from the obience to the Law. Paul said, "By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." (Galatians 2:16)
If the Law has taught us anything, it has been that we cannot keep the Law. Yet, as we follow Christ, we depart from iniquity. Righteousness comes by faith, even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

[ET(end tyranny)]

You didn't answer my question. Did you see the difference between these two verses??

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

As it is written. To what does Paul refer?

Isaiah 59
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Do you see it?????

They differ considerably in doctrine and content! One has the Messiah coming and 'cleansing' the sinner (Romans/Paul) and the other has the Messiah coming to those who have 'repented and cleansed themselves!'(Isaiah)

If the Law has taught us anything, it has been that we cannot keep the Law. Yet, as we follow Christ, we depart from iniquity. Righteousness comes by faith, even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Wrong. God tells you differently than Paul:

Genesis 26
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

For Christians, Isaiah 59:20 presents a serious theological problem because in the third chapter of the Book of Romans, Paul insists that no one can merit his own salvation. One of the most fundamental underpinnings of Christian theology is the Pauline teaching that only the cross, not our own good deeds and heart-felt repentance, can save.

Paul bases this assertion primarily on the verse from Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abrahamm) believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." In both Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6, Paul sets out to prove from this verse that faith alone is what saves man, not his observance of the Law. Paul insists that this verse clearly demonstrates that Abraham was considered righteous through faith alone and not by his deeds. This quote, however, is taken completely out of context. A little further on in the Book of Genesis, the Torah describes the very fabric of Abraham’s "faith." In Genesis 26:5, the Bible declares that "Because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My Commandments, My statutes and My laws." It was Abraham’s unwavering obedience to the commandments of the Almighty in spite of the challenging tests placed before him that revealed his unyielding faith in God. Paul got it wrong.

Paul therefore rearranges the words of Isa. 59:20 so that Romans 11:26 appears to quote Isaiah to read that it will be the Redeemer (Jesus) who will turn away sin from Jacob. This, however, is not what Isaiah 59:20 says. As mentioned above, the original verse proclaims that the Messiah will come only to those who have repented of transgression.

It is not difficult, however, to understand why Paul found this revision of the prophets words necessary. In the next verse Paul continues to tamper and misquote the Jewish text to make it congruous with the alterations of the previous verse.

Romans 11:27 was designed to appear as a continuation of Isaiah’s words when he writes:

Romans 11
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Although the first half of this verse, "And this is my Covenant unto them," is correctly quoted from the first part of Isaiah 59:21:

Isaiah 59
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

the second half has totally disappeared! Replacing this latter half of the verse which Paul expunged, is the interpolated text of Paul’s inventive mind, " When I shall take away their sins." This segment was invented by Paul in order to support his modifications of the previous verse (11:26).

The Messiah will come only to those in Jacob who turn from sin. Such turning from sin will be accomplished in these last days (Daniel 9 timetable) through Messiah’s words. (Jesus preached "repentance" by the way). Such words, if kept in the mouth of God's people, and not withdrawn from their hearts and minds, will cause them to walk in the Commandments of God. Such will produce a righteous remnant in Israel which would qualify as the necessary remnant thus representing the Holy Nation and the Royal Priesthood to whom the Messiah would come. Such spiritual condition by the people of Jacob would be necessary to fulfill their calling as a light to the nations. This concept is totally foreign to the ideas of Paul who prided himself that he was no longer under such "Law" but under grace.

Do you believe Isaiah was a prophet of God anointed with a message "forever"? How long is "forever"?

Is Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, considered somebody’s "offspring"? Of course. Then it is very evident that Paul allowed to happen in his life, what he was warned by Isaiah not to do,…he let the Words of God vanish from his mouth.

Paul apostasized from the faith of Jesus and set the direction for the apostasy of the Gentile followers of Jesus for the millennia to come.

[man of Yosemite]

If you do not accept the testimony of the apostle Paul, neither shall you hear anything that I say.

[ET(end tyranny)]

If you do not accept the testimony of the apostle Paul, neither shall you hear anything that I say.

I prefer God and Jesus over Paul. The NT scriptures are corrupted. Whether Paul did it, ot the Alexandrian Jews did it, makes little difference at this tage of the game. The dammage has been done. And as long as the church pushes false doctrine, the kingdom will NOT come!

[man of Yosemite]

If you read 2Peter3:15-16, Peter states,"...Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Peter equates Paul's revelation to have the same authority as the "other scriptures", meaning the Law and the Prophets. Two thousand years of church history have continued to include these epistles of Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit. He demonstrated his authority not in words only but in the power of the Holy Spirit, working miracles among many.
Jesus established a new covenant which took away the old covenant, perfecting believers through faith in him. As he said to the thief on the cross, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise." That thief had no offering for his sins except the Lord Jesus, who declared him righteous by his faith in Him alone. He had all authority to do so, seeing he was God in our midst, the Word having been made flesh and dwelling amongst us.
The scripture about the deliverer coming to Zion to turn ungodliness from Jacob, was quoted by Paul looking forward to a time when the Jews would accept the Messiah in great numbers as the they are the "natural olive tree". The rejection of Christ by the Jews sent the gospel to the Gentiles, but the time when the Jews will be grafted in to the place they were meant to have is some future event. I have believing Jews in my own family. so perhaps this time is near at hand.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Two thousand years of church history have continued to include these epistles of Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit. He demonstrated his authority not in words only but in the power of the Holy Spirit, working miracles among many.

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Jesus established a new covenant which took away the old covenant, perfecting believers through faith in him.

There was no 'new' covenant, but a RENEWAL of the old covenant.

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Israel had to return to God and allow His Commandments to be written on their hearts and minds. Israel needed a Covenant Renewal of their Sinai Covenant. They needed to repent and return to God through obedience to His Laws thus being a witness and an example to the nations. Only by being such a righteous priestly nation, and example, could they hope to be the catalyst that merits the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and its King. Here it was promised that the spiritual infirmity of Israel would be helped by the intervention of God.

God allowed them to RENEW their 'lease'. But, this time, it was not written on stone, but written WITHIN THEIR HEARTS.

IF..... IF.... there was a new covenant, then why is it that one of the promises of the old covenant (Isreal would regain their homeland) was fulfilled in 1948, when Israel became a nation???

It's the same covenant, just put forth more forcefully, imo.

As he said to the thief on the cross, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise."

Considering that Jesus hadn't risen until 3 days later. And didn't ascend to the Father til later yet.... How could the thief have been in Paradise, that day with Him???

That thief had no offering for his sins except the Lord Jesus, who declared him righteous by his faith in Him alone.

Luke 23
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It was because the thief recognized that he was in his position for his evil actions/deeds/works!

The scripture about the deliverer coming to Zion to turn ungodliness from Jacob, was quoted by Paul looking forward to a time when the Jews would accept the Messiah in great numbers as the they are the "natural olive tree".

You missed the entire point! Paul either deliberately 'twisted' the words of scripture from Isaiah, OR, Paul mispoke scripture, which isn't too good either!!

The rejection of Christ by the Jews

They didn't reject Jesus, they didn't accept his mission's message of repentance.

Jesus taught repentance!

Matthew 3
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 3:
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

Matthew 11:21
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 6
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

Israel wasn't right with God, and not enough repented.

I have believing Jews in my own family. so perhaps this time is near at hand.

Not til more people REPENT. Which brings to mind, these 'Mary' visitations. If I recall correctly, she is always saying REPENT! REPENT!