Posted on 01/03/2006 9:34:40 AM PST by Esther Ruth
Vatican Says Jerusalem "Issue" is Too Important to Leave to Israel, PA 19:15 Jan 03, '06 / 3 Tevet 5766
(IsraelNN.com) The legal counsel of the Vatican in Israel, the priest David Jaeger, said today that Jerusalem is too important of an "issue" to be left to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Jaeger further expressed criticism of Israeli policy regarding holy sites in the country.
"The issue of Jerusalem," the representative of the Roman Catholic Church said, "is to important to leave in the hands of the Israelis and the Palestinians."
The Catholic Church has been making efforts to obtain historical sites in Jerusalem of late, but without public successes.
Assuming she was a virgin when she conceived, how would it be possible for the hymen to remain intact after delivering the child? Caesarian Section?
Only in instances where such precepts do not add or take away from God's actual commands (cf. Deu. 4:5). Wherever we find a conflict between a tradition and the Scripture, the tradition is set aside.
For example, the Talmudic proscription against eating milk with beef is based on a misunderstanding of a particular command not to boil a calf in its mother's milk, which is either a reference to a pagan practice of the day or a command not to withhold the firstborn from being sacrificed. However, since Abraham served God Himself milk with beef (Gen. 18:8), obviously the concept that a calf should not be "boiled" with milk in the stomach is wrong.
Yeshua did not come to do away with the Torah, per His own words. Rather, He came to restore the Torah to its original simplicity. But neither did He do away with all extra-Biblical traditions; the ritual drinking of wine at Passover and baptism (mikveh) being two prominent examples which were enshrined as New Covenant practice. So neither do we simply reject all tradition out of hand.
If a person observes the Sabbath, resting on and keeping holy the seventh day, he has fulfilled the whole commandment, whether or not he says the traditional Jewish prayers or lights the traditional Sabbath candles. We recognize the fact that we do as being tradition, not binding Scripture. For the most part, I give my brothers and sisters in Christ a pass on treating Sunday as the Sabbath, since we are indeed saved by trusting Yeshua, not by keeping the Sabbath in just such-and-such a way.
But I hold any who claim to be the one, true "Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church" to a much higher standard.
Episcopalians claim Apostolic Succession too, which they have in a physical sense. Which leads to something that's bugged me a little. The only reason the Anglicans do NOT have Apostolic Succession is because a Pope, long after the death of Henry VIII, SAID they didn't have it. But how can anyone, even a Pope do that? They can't take away orders anymore than they can allow divorce. The Ordination is a Sacrament just as Marriage is a Sacrament, and what God has joined (ordained) let no man put asunder.
Very close, though there's not a one-for-one correlation (Acts 15 doesn't mention murder, for example). Quite a few scholars think that the Noachide laws provided a foundation for the decision of Acts 15, though.
"What will the Arabs do when Jesus Christ comes back for his reign?"
In Rev 20 when Jesus returns to the world and rule as the world's king, He is described as having "sharp sword of His Word that proceeds from His mouth.". What it means is that when He returns, He simply says "drop dead", and all Arabs (or indeed, everyone that fights against Him) who are not Christians will simply die on the spot.
In other words, most Arabs will get killed.
The Pope is supposedly the end of a long chain of "unbroken Apostolic succession" from Kefa (St. Peter). The only sort of succession we find in Scripture is either by birth (i.e., the monarchy or high priesthood) or laying on of hands by the predecessor. The only exception to this is the replacement of Judas, for the obvious reasons, in which case the other Apostles still laid hands on Mattiyahu (Matthias) to confirm him.
It's irrelevant in any case. An apostate cannot confer authority by laying hands on anyone, nor does having hands laid prevent one from becoming an apostate. Ultimately, it is not those who are supposedly the successors of a person (as the Pharisees claimed they were the successors of an unbroken chain of hand-laying going back to Moses) nor those who say, "Lord, Lord" who are God's true Church, but those who do what He tells them to (Mat. 7:21ff).
Like the Pharisees and moreso, the RCC's priests flagrantly disregards Scripture where it is in conflict with their traditions. Ergo, they do not have the authority to lay hands and elect a "pope" over the true, Spiritual Church.
I disagree with that...Jesus Christ is not on the cross...The cross is gone and He Is Risen...And when we see Him again, we'll see Him in His Glory...And He'll look nothing like He did when He was crucified...
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.
When John laid his eyes up Jesus, he was almost in shock...You won't see a frail, beaten, bloody Nazerene, you'll see a Majestic God who created the stars with the wave of His hand...
" However, since Abraham served God Himself milk with beef (Gen. 18:8), obviously the concept that a calf should not be "boiled" with milk in the stomach is wrong. "
Actually he served the curds first which require no preparation and then the meat. One can eat meat after milk but not vice versa.
Also this is a tradition on Shavuous
Nevertheless, since all the Torah laws weren't given yet to Avraham if he ate a cheeseburger it would probably not have been a major transgression
It depends on the tradition. According to some, you still have to wait between eating curds and meat--indeed, I've found one tradition which charges the angels with sinning by accepting Abraham's meal! (If you want the reference on that, I'll have to check when I get home, but it's in the Etz Chaim IIRC.)
Of course, this just goes to prove that where you have two rabbis, you have three opinions. ;-)
Also, while curds (hem'ah) are indeed mentioned, so is raw milk (halab).
Nevertheless, since all the Torah laws weren't given yet to Avraham if he ate a cheeseburger it would probably not have been a major transgression
Agreed, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the eternal, unchanging God Himself appeared to Abraham with the two angels and had the milk with the calf. Given that, I think that either Maimonides was correct that God was forbidding a specific Canaanite practice which involved literally boiling a calf in its mother's milk as a sacrifice, or that, given the context of the passages, which are dealing with firstfruits, God is telling Israel to not delay in sacrificing the firstborn, i.e., "Do not boil the calf in its mothers milk by continuing to nurse it instead of bringing it to My altar."
A prophecy from Psalm 69:8-9, [I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.] In John 2:17, [His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."]
The Greek for brother is Adephos and that is the word in the Greek translated "brother" in Matthew 12:46,47,48,49, and 50. Also Matthew 13:55 where his brothers, alluded to in Psalm 69, are mentioned by name: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Also in Mark 3:31, 3:34, 6:3; Luke 8:19,20,21; John 2:12, 7:5, 7:10; Acts 1:14, 12:17, Galatians 1:19.....all of these translate adephos as "brother".
The Greek word for cousin is "Anepsios" and you will find it in Colossians 4:10 describing the cousin of Barnabas, Mark.
If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....and Paul wanted you to believe that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were cousins... they would have said so.
What is lost in the translation is the incorrect teaching of your church with regard to Mary's perpetual virginity that forces you to ignore scriptural truth.
the same rule applies for any dairy product-milk, cheese or curds.
eat them first then you can have meat. meat first you have to wait.
Of course Jesus never said "adephos" since he did not speak in Greek , but rather in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Perhaps someday archeologists will uncover "Hebrew mathew" or the other original Gospels that the original Jewish Christians had.
by the way where did nuns and rosary beads come from?
You raise a good point. The jerusalem Council allowed goyim to become christians without becomin Jews, however what is forgotten is that the Mosaic code was still applicable to Jews (christian or Not).
Agreed, though I think the vast majority of the Torah is applicable to both Jewish and Gentile believers. Certainly, one can't find "the Sabbath is now on the first day to commemorate the Resurrection" or "keep Christmas instead of Sukkot" anywhere in the Tanakh or NT. There are exceptions, of course, like ceremonial cleanliness (which is mostly applicable only if you're worshipping in the Temple in Jerusalem), sacrifices (which were ministered by the Levites exclusively, though now we believe that Yeshua is the new High Priest by God's direct appointment, so that He can be both a priest and a king like Melchizedek), kosher (which God did not impose on Noah when He gave him all the animals to eat), etc.
In fact during the Inquisition Jews should not have been tortured into becoming Catholics but rather Orthodox Jewish Christians.
Agreed, though the hostility towards the Nazarines (what we would today call Messianic Jews) goes back much further than that. They were barely tolerated by Justin Martyr as early as the 2nd century, were openly termed heretics by the 4th, and Jews entering the faith were forced to surrender every vestage of Jewishness (Sabbath, Passover, kosher, etc.) in order to be accepted into the supposed Church of the Jewish Messiah by the 5th.
Of course, that was derived from Roman and Greek bigotry, fueled by Judea's two failed rebellions, rather than from the Scriptures.
This new Pope may have his own ideas but it will not be easy cleaning house.
**
Sad but true....
By the way where did nuns and rosary beads come from?
Well, similar beads can be found in pagan practices all over the world--if you watch any anime, you'll see prayer beads in a Shinto context a lot.
Within Roman Catholicism, the practice of using beads or some other device (like knots on a cord among some Eastern Orthodox monks) goes back almost to Roman times, and the use of what we would recognize as rosaries goes back to at least the 11th Century. The Rosary itself (i.e., the "Hail Mary" prayer) is usually traced to a Marian vision beheld by St. Dominic in about 1214 AD, which he then passed on to the Roman Church. Here are a pair of articles from RCC sources, should you want to pursue the matter further: The Catholic Encyclopedia: The Rosary and The Secret of the Rosary.
It's not a universal practice, of course. Protestants decry both the "vain repetitions" of the prayer and the overemphasis on Mary, who receives something like ten mentions for every one mention of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) put together.
Vatican + Opinion = A shot in the FOOT! Wise old Indian says mind your own business and clean your own house of Vermin!
I have found your posts quite interesting. Your probably quite familiar with the works of jeffrey Butz, Vermes and Eisenman.
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.