Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[TASMANIANRED]

Enjoy the ball game.

You have reason to beam over grandson's pitcing arm.

[Diego1618]

Diego asserts that Strong says that tribe is the "preferred" meaning of ethnos. I go to HIS source and find that's not what it says at all! How can I ever trust you again?

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματοc

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

ETHNOS

How in the world can you say that "Tribe" would not be a preferred meaning of the word "ETHNOS"? Who do you think Our Lord was referring to....if not the Tribes? [Matthew 10:6]

You are quibbling!

[Ping-Pong]

Diego I hope you're enjoying your grandson's game. There is nothing quite as wonderful as grandchildren.

Thank you for giving a more complete explanation of the tribe issue. In reading some of your commentary on this thread you seemed to touch on the subject and I expected someone to ask about it but no one did, (at least I think they didn't).

It really does open up scripture to see the difference in the tribes and know who the Jews actually are and that there was a House of Israel before there was a nation of Israel. That fact and that there was an age before this one make God's Word much easier to understand, at least for me.

Thank you again....Ping-Pong

[Uncle Chip]

Nice Try!!!

Is St Peter's Basilica built over a pagan cemetery? Yes or No.

Have they found Peter's bones under the Basilica where that pagan cemetery was? Yes or No.

And how do you know that Justin Martyr was wrong about that statue? Did Irenaeus say that he was wrong? Did Origen or Hippolytus or anyone close to the ground at that time say that he was wrong?

[AnAmericanMother]

From a historical point of view, the Unitarians grew out of the Congregationalist tradition. The old New England Congregationalists began essentially as Calvinists, but by the late 18th/early 19th c. had mostly morphed into Unitarians, and many of them were preaching Universalism. The Congregationalists eventually split into a traditional branch and a Unitarian branch. Guess your church was in the latter group.

I had sort of inklings of this from years ago when I took a course on the New England Transcendentalist writers, who all grew out of that tradition. That's why it seemed plausible.

[Uncle Chip]

How in the world can you say that "Tribe" would not be a preferred meaning of the word "ETHNOS"? Who do you think Our Lord was referring to....if not the Tribes? [Matthew 10:6]

Diego, the NT word translated "tribe" is the Greek "phule" #5443 in Strong's Concordance.

Nowhere in any translation that I am aware of is "ethnos" in that verse or any other translated as "tribes". For example Mt 24:9 reads "and ye shall be hated of all nations [ethnos] for my names sake."

Whenever the writers of the NT were referring to the "tribes" of Israel, they used "phule" not "ethnos".

[markomalley]

Diego,

You said, The land north was referred to as Samaria and still populated by paganized descendants of Babylonian refugees....the ancestors of Simon Magus. [Acts 8]

From this, I surmise that the Samaritans were, in fact, descendants of the 10 tribes of the former Northern Kingdom.

You then said, These ten tribes are who Our Saviour refers to when He speaks of the "Lost Sheep". You then cited, again, Matthew 10:6. You also cited Matthew 15:24.

Matthew 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You then state that Jesus gave Peter the charge to tend to those 'lost sheep' in John 21:15-17.

John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

John 21:16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

John 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

So let's take a look at this a bit. According to what you're saying, in the above references, including Matthew 10:6, is that Peter and the twelve were commanded to go to the ten lost tribes. What you said earlier, was that the Samaritans were, in fact, paganized members of those ten lost tribes.

So if the above two are the case, and you said that they are, then why would Jesus say what He did in Matthew 10:5?

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans"

It seems that since Samaria was still populated by paganized descendants of Babylonian refugees (known as Samaritans, that it would be perfectly logical for Jesus to tell the 12 to go to the Samaritans, since they were to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:6).

In the account in Matthew 15:24, Jesus is speaking to a Canaanite woman (a gentile). According to this and the parallel account in Mark chapter 7 (at least I assume it was parallel, in Mark, it says she was a a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation), her wish was eventually rewarded. According to both accounts, Jesus was in the vicinity of Tyre, in Syria. In other words, He was not even in Israel (Judea, Samaria, Galilee).

Interesting what was said in the Mark account, though. In verse 27 of this account, Jesus said, And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." What I find interesting here is that He says that the dogs will be fed...just not yet (at that time).

If you take a look at another account where Jesus healed a gentile, you will see another interesting thing:

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

Mat 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

So in both these accounts, Jesus is stating that all WILL be able to be saved.

Finally, in the verses you cite in John 21, you will note that Jesus did not call them the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." Nor did He call them "lost sheep." Just "sheep."

I would refer you to the following verses in John 10.

Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

Jhn 10:13 He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep.

Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me,

Jhn 10:15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Please note verse 16 very, very carefully.

Again, I think your theory has some serious flaws to it. I suggested before that we agree to disagree. Allow me to suggest that again.

By the way, I hope your grandson's game went well. 51 mph? Not half bad!

[Diego1618]

Diego, the NT word translated "tribe" is the Greek "phule" #5443 in Strong's Concordance.

You are absolutely correct. Phule is the word translated "tribe" in the Greek in all cases.

Nowhere in any translation that I am aware of is "ethnos" in that verse or any other translated as "tribes". For example Mt 24:9 reads "and ye shall be hated of all nations [ethnos] for my names sake."

Well...you may be right here also....but we cannot be certain as Matthew was written in the Hebrew....and no original exists. It was later translated into the Greek.

The one thing we can be sure of is that "ETHNOS" also means tribes in the Greek.....and why it was translated "ETHNOS" instead of "PHULE" remains a question.

[Diego1618]

You said, The land north was referred to as Samaria and still populated by paganized descendants of Babylonian refugees....the ancestors of Simon Magus. [Acts 8] From this, I surmise that the Samaritans were, in fact, descendants of the 10 tribes of the former Northern Kingdom.

Why would you surmise that? How would pagan refugees from Babylon [II Kings 17:24] being repopulated into Samaria have any relationship to the Israelites of the North. They had previously been removed [II Kings 17:6] by this same king who is now bringing in Babylonians. Two separate groups of people!

So let's take a look at this a bit. According to what you're saying, in the above references, including Matthew 10:6, is that Peter and the twelve were commanded to go to the ten lost tribes. What you said earlier, was that the Samaritans were, in fact, paganized members of those ten lost tribes

I think you need to go back and read it again. I never said this.

I also never said that there would not be a ministry to the Gentiles. I think that you are reading something into this that I'm not saying.

By the way, I hope your grandson's game went well. 51 mph? Not half bad.

Thank you....we won 21 to 7. Like most little league games they are usually very high scoring. LOL!

[kerryusama04]

This is one reason why many folks cannot understand simple prophecy.

Another one might be because we aren't prophets or it isn't time yet.

Dan 12:3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

I'll concede that most folks don't differentiate between Israel and Judah. In that light, how does one include the Christian of pure Gentile heritage?

[markomalley]

How can I make that comment?

Because of your use of the word 'paganized.'

'Paganized', although not defined in Webster, implies that they were, at one time, not pagan. That a process occurred to make them pagan.

I wasn't personally assuming that Samaria was populated by descendants of the ten tribes. I surmised that you believed that because of your use of the word 'paganized.'

As to not having a ministry to the gentiles, I think that is exactly what you were saying. Until Saul of Tarsus. I think you have been saying that Jesus commanded the 12 to go forth to the lost tribes of Israel. And that only Saul of Tarsus was to have a ministry to the Gentiles.

Congrats on the little league game, btw!

[Mad Dawg]

Well...you may be right here also....but we cannot be certain as Matthew was written in the Hebrew....and no original exists. It was later translated into the Greek.
Hebrew or Aramaic? And may I see your source for your answer, please?

The one thing we can be sure of is that "ETHNOS" also means tribes in the Greek
HOW may we be sure of that? As far as I can see the one thing we CAN be sure of is that tribe is by no means other than context the "preferred" translation and in fact in the KJV ethnos is not translated as tribe even once according to Young's Analytical.

......and why it was translated "ETHNOS" instead of "PHULE" remains a question.

Could you please rephrase? What is the antecedent of "it"? Are you saying we can know what the original Aramaic or Hebrew Text of Matthew was?

[markomalley]

Hebrew or Aramaic? And may I see your source for your answer, please?

That is the tradition.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following:

Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.

[Uncle Chip]

As I read Mt 10:5-6, Jesus is sending his 12 into the cities in the land of Israel in what might be called the "little" commission. This was not the great commission but a localized missionary activity to the cities of the house of Israel in the land of Israel.

It also appears that the focus of the apostles for the first years after Pentecost remained on the house of Israel aka the Jews, until the call of Paul, which together with Peter's visit to the house of Cornelius, opened the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles.

That's where Peter used his famous keys to the kingdom --- to open the door for the Gentiles. This event actually marks the birth of the Gentile part of the church. But note how unwilling Peter was to go down there. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Cornelius' house, the house of a Gentile to give them the Gospel.

It may have been at this time that all of the other apostles widened their ministries to include Gentiles as well as the Jews. If not then, then it certainly would have been at the Council at Jerusalem circa 49 AD. But Peter's focus remained on the Jews [the circumcision] throughout his apostolic life ---

[Mad Dawg]

I don't know what you mean by "nice try". This isn't shooting baskets or some high school debate club. I'm serious here.

You're claiming to be able to show conclusively that the vast majority of Christians are very wrong indeed about some basic and critical points of early church history. But, so far, very few of the assertions made with a bold certitude (and often a bold font) bear up under examination. What you present as conclusively shown turns out to be highly questionable -- not WRONG necessarily, but not at all as certain as you suggest.

I don't understand why I am faced with some "YES or NO" questions. I think if you look at my participation here you will find that mostly I have tried to clarify the propositions of my Church and show how a reasonable person MIGHT assent to them. You want to know what I think? Ask!

Okay, so you did ask -- your questions:
- Basilica over Cemetery -- As far as I know, which ain't far, yes.
- Peter's Bones --I don't know. What I hear is they've found some likely candidates (UNDER the menagerie where you inexplicably stopped your first account) and Paul VI (I think) was persuaded. My sun does not rise or set on such questions. So if it's good enough for the much maligned Paulus Sixtus, it's good enough for this Dawg.
(C) - Justin Martyr being mistaken about the Semo Sancto Statue -- I don't know. I didn't say I knew. The percentage of payability when I research stuff you guys present as certain is so low that I'm sure not going to check it out now.

If you want to persuade me that I am wrong, it seems to me you have the burden of answering how you know Justin is right. My recollection is I reported what others said when you changed the subject to Justin and the others, and I was struck by the repeated theme that "they" had found a statue or a plinth or base or whatever with an inscription along the lines of "SEMO SANCTO", and so forth.

I don't know and certainly am not going to go through all of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, or Origen to find out what they say about Justin's account of Simon Magus.

If the question is meant to suggest that Irenaeus, Origen, or Hippolytus, being "close to the ground at that time", would be more reliable as to matters of fact than later researchers, I would dispute the suggestion.

A repeated (and repeatedly ignored) theme of my question about what you two propose is that a collection of probabilities does not make a certainty. I say again: If there is a 90% chance that Adam knows Beth and a 90% chance that Beth knows Charlie there is only an 81% chance that both of those are true. And the probabilities decline exponentially. By the time there are only 7 90% probabilities you've reached the level of "less reliable than a coin toss." I'm not throwing over my Church on those odds.
0.90
0.81
0.73
0.66
0.59
0.53
0.48

I didn't start this saying you all were wrong. YOU ALL came in saying WE were wrong -- from Sunday worship on down. You're the ones saying that a myth has fallen, that proof has been presented. And it turns out that by "fallen" you only mean not scientifically verifiable and not without its detractors, and by "proof" you mean ... well it's not clear what you all think constitutes a proof.

In any event, I'm just saying you're not persuading me. A guy wants me to buy a car and makes a lot of statements about it with great firmness, essentially saying,"Trust me, I'm right on this." I do a little research and find that one of his statements is, at best, a serious misinterpretation of the facts. I say, "Hey, what about this? What's up with that?" He says,"Nice try. How do you know I'm wrong?" You think he's going to sell a lot of cars?

Hint: not to me.

[MarkBsnr]

Well, Peter was crucified upside down and apparently missing his feet (a likely way of taking him down off the cross), and you know that how??? How many Jewish (or Christian for that matter) places of burial do you think were lying around (so to speak)? Quite a few since there had been a significant Jewish presence there --- Besides, think of the magnificent metaphor. Peter, buried in the midst of the pagans he was sent to convert; St. Peter's, rising over their dead remains. or the Basilica rising above the corpse of Simon Magus, buried beneath it in the midst of his pagan followers on a hill [Vatican] named for the soothsayers, fortune tellers, seers, and pagan prophets who peddled their wares there. It gives new meaning to a church built upon such a foundation.

1. I know this how? Try Google. There are so many sources available that they may even satisfy you.

2. There weren't quite a few. There were none. If the Jews were chased by force out of Rome and the Christians were illegal, there weren't any, at least operational.

3. Christ sent his disciples (including all Christians) into the world of pagans. By word or deed or posting, we see those who would remain so.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you.

When I was in σeminary, the profs said that Acts 26:14, τη Εβραιδε διαλεκτω meant Aramaic rather than Hebrew. They did not say WHY they said this. I only remembered it because those of us who were studying Hebrew would taunt the people studying Greek with this verse, offering it as proof that God spoke the language We were studying.

So I'm wondering if the distinction (or rather LACK of distinction) persisted to the time of that well known creator of myths, Eusebius

[markomalley]

As I read Mt 10:5-6, Jesus is sending his 12 into the cities in the land of Israel in what might be called the "little" commission. This was not the great commission but a localized missionary activity to the cities of the house of Israel in the land of Israel.

Agreed.

That's where Peter used his famous keys to the kingdom --- to open the door for the Gentiles. This event actually marks the birth of the Gentile part of the church. But note how unwilling Peter was to go down there. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Cornelius' house, the house of a Gentile to give them the Gospel.

Agreed...with part. You are right that Peter had to be dragged kicking and screaming, metaphorically. God had to present him with a vision in order to knock him upside the head.

However, I believe you are misinterpreting the use of the "keys of the kingdom." The symbology behind the 'keys' are a transfer of authority. Please refer to Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 1:18.

Smith's Bible Dictionary says the following about "keys:"

The key of a native Oriental lock is a piece of wood, from seven inches to two feet in length, fitted with the wires or short nails, which, being inserted laterally into the hollow bolt which serves as a lock, raises other pins within the staple so as to allow the bolt to be drawn back. (Keys were sometimes of bronze or iron, and so large that one was as much as a man could carry. They are used in Scripture as a symbol of authority and power. Giving keys to a person signifies the intrusting of him with an important charge. (Matthew 16:19) In England in modern times certain officers of the government receive, at their induction into office, a golden key.—ED.)

Nave's Topical Bible says:

–General scriptures concerning Jud 3:25

• A symbol of authority Isa 22:22; Mt 16:19; Re 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1
• FIGURATIVE Lu 11:52

Easton's Bible Dictionary says the following:

Frequently mentioned in Scripture. It is called in Hebrew maphteah, i.e., the opener (Judg. 3:25); and in the Greek New Testament kleis, from its use in shutting (Matt. 16:19; Luke 11:52; Rev. 1:18, etc.). Figures of ancient Egyptian keys are frequently found on the monuments, also of Assyrian locks and keys of wood, and of a large size (comp. Isa. 22:22). The word is used figuratively of power or authority or office (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7; Rev. 1:8; comp. 9:1; 20:1; comp. also Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The “key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52; comp. Matt. 23:13) is the means of attaining the knowledge regarding the kingdom of God. The “power of the keys” is a phrase in general use to denote the extent of ecclesiastical authority.

[Uncle Chip]

Clearly you object to my boldening of certain summarizing statements in the article that I did not post but was posted by another Catholic poster. So why don't you post the article in full as I did in post #1847 and bolden what you consider the important part or parts.

[Uncle Chip]

1. I know this how? Try Google. There are so many sources available that they may even satisfy you.

Find the earliest. The first time we hear about an upside-down crucifixion is in the apocryphal Acts of Peter written about 170 - 190 AD. That is where the myth got started.

2. There weren't quite a few. There were none. If the Jews were chased by force out of Rome and the Christians were illegal, there weren't any, at least operational.

What does it take to operate a cemetery --- a shovel? And look on a map sometime of Rome and see all the Jewish cemeteries --- I wonder how ancient some of the old grave markers are?

Jews who were Roman citizens, like Paul, could still enter or remain in Rome even after Claudius's decree, but those who were not citizens, like Peter, would not even be permitted to enter. In the Book of Acts Paul meets with a group of Jewish elders when he arrives there in 60 AD. These must have been part of that community of Jews who were permitted to stay in Rome.